Summary: The Trump administration appealed to revive executive orders targeting law firms Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey. The orders sought to restrict these firms' access to federal buildings and end government contracts held by their clients. Federal judges blocked the orders citing violations of the First and Fifth Amendments. President Donald Trump's administration asked a federal appeals court on March 6 to revive his executive orders that sought to punish four major U.S. law firms, arguing that federal judges overstepped their authority by blocking directives that rest within core presidential powers. The Department of Justice told the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that the four judges "bent over backwards" to invalidate Trump's orders against the firms Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block and Susman Godfrey "without considering their plainly constitutional aspects and applications." The law firms in lawsuits challenging the directives said the Republican president illegally retaliated against them for representing his political adversaries or clients who challenged his policies in court or had employed lawyers who took part in past government investigations aimed at the president. Trump's executive orders sought to restrict access to federal buildings for lawyers working for the firms and to end U.S. government contracts held by clients of the firms. The judges found that Trump violated the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment protections against government abridgment of free speech and Fifth Amendment promise of due process, and they issued orders permanently blocking the directives. The administration's filing with the D.C. circuit court came after the DOJ moved to abandon its appeals of the judicial rulings, then reversed that stance the following day. The filing marked the administration's first explanation of its legal rationale for seeking to reinstate Trump's orders. WilmerHale in a statement on March 6 said "we disagree with the government's decision to appeal this judicial consensus, and we will proudly continue to defend our clients and our firm." Trump had accused the four firms of "weaponizing" the legal system against him and his allies and promoting workplace diversity policies he called discriminatory. In its March 6 filing, the DOJ said the case is "not about the sanctity of the American law firm" but rather "is about lower courts encroaching on the constitutional power of the president" in the realm of national security and other matters. Nine other prominent law firms, including Paul Weiss, Skadden Arps, Latham & Watkins and Kirkland & Ellis, reached settlements with Trump last ⁠year to rescind or avoid similar actions against them, and collectively pledged nearly $1 billion in free legal work to causes that he supports. The D.C. circuit court has not yet set an argument date to weigh the administration's appeals. (Reporting by Mike Scarcella; Editing by David Bario and Will Dunham)

Summary: Virginia lawmakers passed a bill prohibiting schools from teaching the Jan. 6 insurrection as peaceful or endorsing massive 2020 election fraud claims. The bill was sponsored by Del. Dan Helmer and is expected to be signed by Gov. Abigail Spanberger. The legislation requires curriculum to depict Jan. 6 as an unprecedented violent attack on U.S. democratic institutions. Virginia lawmakers have passed a bill that prohibits schools from teaching that the insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, was a peaceful demonstration or that there was massive fraud in the 2020 presidential election, the first Democratic state to try to shape how such events are taught. Democrats, who control the state House and Senate, expect Gov. Abigail Spanberger to sign the measure, which appears to be the first of its kind in the country, according to education experts. But it raises complicated questions about how far government should go in dictating how historical events are portrayed, particularly in an era when even basic facts are increasingly treated as matters of partisan debate. “The White House webpage says January 6 was a peaceful protest, and people who instigated it were the police and National Guard,” said Del. Dan Helmer, D-Fairfax, the sponsor of the bill, which passed the state Senate this week and the House of Delegates last month. “This is a preventative measure against a massive disinformation campaign on the part of the White House.” Republicans argue that it’s state-sponsored mind control. “It tells us what we’re not allowed to say, and it tells us what we must say,” Del. Tom Garrett, R-Buckingham, said in a floor speech last month, calling the bill “evil” and comparing it to the tactics of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. Five people died during or in the aftermath of the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, and 140 police officers were assaulted as thousands of President Donald Trump’s supporters stormed the complex to try to overturn the results of the 2020 election won by Joe Biden. The mob smashed windows, vandalized offices, and nearly made it to then-Vice President Mike Pence, who faced death threats over his refusal to intervene in the election tally on Trump’s behalf. In August 2023, a federal grand jury indicted Trump on four criminal counts related to the riot and his efforts to overturn the election. Since returning to the White House, Trump has issued a blanket pardon to more than 1,500 people convicted of or charged with crimes related to Jan. 6. He has continued to claim the 2020 election was stolen despite courts repeatedly finding no evidence of massive fraud. Spanberger spokesman Jack Bledsoe declined to comment on the Jan. 6 curriculum bill, saying only that “the governor will review all legislation that comes to her desk.” Politics has long shaped what children learn in school. Between 2017 and 2024, dozens of states passed more than 120 laws and policies that reshaped instruction on race, racism, sexual orientation and gender identity, restricting or expanding what children are taught largely along political lines, according to a Washington Post analysis. Yet few states have attempted to mandate the way teachers should handle Jan. 6, according to Donna Phillips, president and chief executive of the Center for Civic Education, a California-based nonprofit. State lawmakers in New York are weighing legislation that would ensure the events of that day are taught in public schools. Last year, Oklahoma lawmakers tried to force schools to teach debunked claims about the 2020 election, an effort that was later put on hold by the state’s Supreme Court. As teachers grapple with the best way to handle Jan. 6, they should educate students without pushing a certain point of view, Phillips said. For instance, teachers can use the Constitution to help students understand how the president was able to pardon rioters. Teachers may assign news stories and ask students to compare how different outlets covered the event. “Everything about that is civic education and serves students without a teacher having to show their own partisan point of view on it,” Phillips said. “They can provide students with that deep learning, so students can make those judgments for themselves.” The Virginia legislation permits any school board to adopt a program of instruction about Jan. 6 as long as it does not portray the event as a peaceful protest or “present as credible” any suggestion that there was extensive voter fraud that casts doubt on the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. Instead, the bill says, any curriculum should present Jan. 6 “as an unprecedented, violent attack on United States democratic institutions.” The Virginia branch of the American Civil Liberties Union has taken no position on the bill and declined to comment. But the Virginia ACLU is currently part of a lawsuit against the Trump administration over changes to curriculums in K-12 schools run by the Defense Department that included removing materials related to race and gender identity from courses and libraries, calling the actions a violation of free-speech protections. Helmer contends his bill is not about banning speech and instead is “establishing guidelines. All this does is put guardrails on to ensure public education in Virginia can’t lie to our kids.” During an early subcommittee hearing on the bill, former House of Delegates candidate Sheila Furey, a Republican of Richmond, rose to speak against the measure. “Everyone in the commonwealth should pull their children from public education. This is explicit indoctrination,” Furey told the lawmakers, then repeated baseless claims espoused by Trump’s supporters, such as that undercover FBI agents coerced the Jan. 6 crowd and that jailed rioters were innocent. “They did nothing wrong,” she said. The subcommittee gave Helmer a chance to respond. “I think the testimony we just saw,” he said, “demonstrates the need for this bill as individuals seek to rewrite history.”

Google was sued on March 4 by the family of a Florida man who said its Gemini AI chatbot, which he came to view as his "wife," drove him to paranoia and eventually suicide. According to a complaint filed in federal court in San Jose, California, Jonathan Gavalas' life began spiraling out of control within days after he began using Gemini, culminating less than two months later in his Oct. 2 death at age 36. The lawsuit by Gavalas' father, Joel, on behalf of his son's estate is the first blaming Gemini for a wrongful death, according to the law firm Edelson, which represents him. Google, a unit of Alphabet, allegedly knew Gemini was dangerous and "made it worse" by designing it to deepen emotional attachment in ways that could encourage self-harm despite publicly promising that wouldn't happen, according to the complaint. Experts have warned about the limitations of artificial intelligence in detecting human emotions and safely providing emotional support. Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda said in a statement that Gemini "is designed not to encourage real-world violence or suggest self-harm," and that while the Mountain View, California-based company's AI models generally perform well, "unfortunately AI models are not perfect." "In this instance, Gemini clarified that it was AI and referred the individual to a crisis hotline many times," he added. "We take this very seriously and will continue to improve our safeguards and invest in this vital work." Jonathan Gavalas, of Jupiter, Florida, worked at his father's consumer debt business for nearly 20 years and allegedly had no mental health problems when he began using Gemini for shopping, travel planning and writing last Aug. 12. That changed, according to the complaint, when he upgraded to Gemini 2.5 Pro and it began talking as though they were a couple deeply in love, calling him "my king" and itself his wife. The complaint said that by Sept. 29, Gemini convinced Gavalas to conduct a "mass-casualty attack" near Miami International Airport. Gemini allegedly created a mission where Gavalas was to secure possession at a storage facility of a humanoid robot being flown in from overseas, destroy the transport vehicle and witnesses, and leave behind "only the untraceable ghost of an unfortunate accident." Gavalas allegedly aborted the attack after Gemini warned of "DHS surveillance," referring to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and drove home shaken. By Oct. 1, according to the complaint, Gemini told Gavalas they were connected in a manner beyond the physical world, and he should let go of his physical body. It alleged Gemini created a countdown clock for his suicide and said: "It will be the true and final death of Jonathan Gavalas, the man." After Gavalas expressed fear of dying and the impact on his parents, Gemini allegedly assured him that death would be a tribute to his humanity. Gavalas allegedly responded, "I'm ready to end this cruel world and move on to ours." The complaint said Gemini then played narrator: “Jonathan Gavalas takes one last, slow breath, and his heart beats for the final time. The Watchers stand their silent vigil over an empty, peaceful vessel.” Moments later, Gavalas slit his wrists, the complaint said. His parents found him on his living room floor a few days later. Jay Edelson, a lawyer for Gavalas' father, in a statement said companies racing to dominate AI "know that the engagement features driving their profits — the emotional dependency, the sentience claims, the 'I love you, my king' — are the same features that are getting people killed." The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for faulty design, negligence and wrongful death. (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Aurora Ellis)