Summary: US Supreme Court rejects Meta’s jurisdiction challenge Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark leads lawsuit Meta faced $375 million penalty in New Mexico case The U.S. Supreme Court declined on May 26 to hear a bid by Meta Platforms to avoid a lawsuit brought by Vermont’s attorney general accusing the company of designing its Instagram social media app to be addictive to young users, as big technology companies face mounting legal risks over child and teen safety. The justices turned away Meta’s appeal of a lower court’s ruling that let the lawsuit proceed, rejecting the company’s argument that courts in Vermont lack jurisdiction over the dispute. The case is part of a wave of litigation by individuals, municipalities, states and school districts nationwide amid a global backlash over the effects of social media on young users, with lawsuits focusing on the way companies designed and operated their platforms. Vermont argued that Instagram was designed to “exploit teenagers’ developing brains” to foster addiction and sell more advertising space, including ads that target Vermont markets and teens, and that Meta also intentionally misled consumers about the safety of its product. Meta said the state did not allege that it designed the app or its features in Vermont, or that any of the alleged misrepresentations about Instagram’s safety or addictiveness were made in Vermont. Testifying in February at a youth social media addiction trial in California, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg denied that Instagram targets kids. Vermont’s Democratic Attorney General Charity Clark sued Meta in 2023 in state court under the state’s consumer protection law, claiming that Instagram has even studied teens’ neurological, cognitive and psychological vulnerabilities to cause them to use the app compulsively and excessively, harming their mental health. The lawsuit was part of a coordinated effort involving 42 state attorneys general filing enforcement actions in both state and federal courts around the country. Meta sought to have the Vermont case dismissed. Meta has argued that allowing the case to proceed in Vermont is unfair, violating its right to due process under the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment, because it could subject the company to such legal challenges in all 50 states. The Vermont Supreme Court rejected this concern in 2025, noting that because the state sued Meta for allegedly pushing a harmful design and misleading users about it – harnessing personal information and generating revenue as a result – any due process concerns are “clearly extinguished.” “A company that reaches out and purposefully avails itself of a forum state’s market for its own economic gain can expect to be haled into court in that jurisdiction to account for its conduct related to those business activities,” the Vermont Supreme Court said. Meta’s appeal at the U.S. Supreme Court follows recent, unfavorable outcomes for the company in state courts. In April, the top court in Massachusetts ruled that Meta must face a similar youth addiction lawsuit by that state’s attorney general. In March, a jury ordered Meta to pay $375 million in civil penalties in a lawsuit by New Mexico’s attorney general, accusing the company of misleading users about the safety of Facebook and Instagram and of enabling child sexual exploitation on those platforms. Also in March, a separate jury in Los Angeles found Meta and Alphabet’s Google negligent for designing social media platforms that are harmful to young people, awarding a combined $6 million to a 20-year-old woman who said she became addicted to social media as a child. In May, Meta settled a lawsuit brought by a school district in Kentucky, one of thousands seeking to make social media companies cover the costs that schools say they have incurred to combat a mental health crisis allegedly fueled by platforms. (Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; Editing by Will Dunham)

Summary: Justice Department files to lift injunction on ballroom project U.S. District Judge Richard Leon issued injunction in April National Trust for Historic Preservation opposes dismissal   The U.S. Justice Department has again asked a federal judge to lift an injunction holding up progress on President Donald Trump's ballroom project, saying the May 23 shooting outside the White House showed an urgent need for improved security. The Justice Department, in a five-page court filing on Sunday, said the incident underscores the critical need for "top level, state of the art security at the White House, including the ballroom," adding that it was vital for national security. It also asks for the lawsuit challenging the project to be dismissed. The court filing stated: "This is a terrible, tremendously harmful case to the United States of America, and all it stands for!" U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, an appointee of former President George ​W. Bush sitting in Washington, ruled in April that Trump lacked legal authority to ‌build the ⁠ballroom without congressional approval. Leon issued an injunction that halted "above-ground construction of the planned ballroom," but his order was quickly put on hold by an appeals court. Construction has continued. The DOJ had previously asked Leon to dissolve his injunction and throw out the lawsuit over the ballroom after a foiled attack at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner in April. Leon has not acted on that request. The lawsuit was filed by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, a congressionally chartered nonprofit organization. It said it would not drop its lawsuit after the attack in April, despite the Justice Department's request. The gunman who fired at a White House ‌checkpoint on May 23 was shot by officers and died after being taken to the hospital that evening, the Secret Service said. (Reporting by Arathy Somasekhar in Houston, editing by Deepa Babington, Rod Nickel)

Summary: CHS TX filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in Florida Federal jury awarded $307.5 million to Kohchise Jackson Jackson alleges colostomy reversal denied as cost-cutting A prison healthcare contractor, hit with a $307.5 million verdict by a federal jury in Detroit in April, has filed for bankruptcy, casting doubt on whether a former Michigan inmate will ever collect on the massive award. CHS TX, Inc., doing business as YesCare, notified the U.S. District Court in Detroit May 11 that the company and its affiliates had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, on May 8 in Florida, records show. CHS TX was born out of the 2023 bankruptcy of former Michigan prison health care contractor Corizon Health, Inc. and assumed certain Corizon liabilities, becoming the main defendant in a federal lawsuit brought against Corizon in 2019 by former Michigan Department of Corrections inmate Kohchise Jackson. Now, CHS TX has followed Corizon's lead and also sought bankruptcy protection. On April 2, a federal jury awarded Jackson a $307.5 million judgment against CHS TX and $100,000 in punitive damages against Dr. Keith Papendick, who was Corizon's "director of utilization management" while Jackson was in prison from 2017 to 2019. Jackson alleged Corizon refused to reverse his colostomy, as a cost-cutting measure, leaving him to suffer with a leaky and stinky plastic bag attached to his side during his time in prison on assault and weapons charges. Jackson was by far the largest unsecured creditor in a list of the 30 largest unsecured creditors, with claims totaling $407.5 million, that the company filed with the bankruptcy court. "He's disappointed," Ann Arbor attorney Ian Cross, one of the lead attorneys on the case, said of Jackson. "He's been waiting a long time," but "Mr. Jackson is in it for the long haul, as are we." It's too early to say what the bankruptcy means for collecting on the verdict, because CHS TX has not yet filed a list of assets and it's not yet known how much value there is and where the money has gone, Cross said. In many cases after a significant jury verdict, defendants will negotiate a smaller settlement in lieu of an appeal. But the bankruptcy filing results in an automatic halt to the case until the bankruptcy is resolved. Records show that since the bankruptcy filing, several counties around the U.S. that had jail health care contracts with CHS TX and affiliates have moved to terminate those contracts. It's possible CHS TX will have no underlying assets, but even if that's the case, attorneys are exploring options that could involve related companies and/or owners, Cross said. On April 29, Cross filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Jackson and another plaintiff against former Corizon official Isaac Lefkowitz of New York City and other former Corizon officials and investors, alleging violations of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The suit alleges the defendants remove cash and other assets from companies in advance of bankruptcies and prevent creditors from recovering assets. An answer to the lawsuit had not been filed as of May 20. Lefkowitz was subpoenaed to testify during Jackson's civil lawsuit that began March 24 in federal court in Detroit. He refused to answer questions when he was called to the witness stand, citing his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, court records show. Adam Masin, a New York attorney representing CHS TX, told jurors Lefkowitz had nothing to do with Jackson's lawsuit because he didn't become a Corizon official until 2021, long after Jackson was released from prison and the same year the MDOC's five-year, $716 million contract with Corizon ended. Lefkowitz was also not a director of CHS TX as of April 2 and had no role with the company at that time, Masin told jurors.