Summary: Justin Sun sues World Liberty Financial in California federal court Sun alleges illegal freezing and threat to delete $320 million in tokens World Liberty co-founded by Donald Trump and sons denies claims  Crypto entrepreneur Justin Sun on April 21 ​sued World Liberty Financial, the digital currency venture co-founded by U.S. President Donald Trump and his sons, alleging that World Liberty illegally froze his holdings of tokens issued by the company. Sun alleged in the lawsuit, filed in a federal court in California, that World Liberty secretly installed tools to prevent the sale of his tokens after they became tradeable in September 2025. The lawsuit also alleges that World Liberty threatened to "burn" - or permanently delete - his holdings, even while they were in Sun's digital wallet. Sun, the Hong Kong-based founder of the Tron cryptocurrency, bought $45 million of WLFI tokens - some 3 billion - and was later awarded a further 1 billion tokens after being named as an advisor to World Liberty, the lawsuit said. Sun's portfolio of 4 billion WLFI tokens is worth roughly $320 million, according to Reuters calculations based on the latest WLFI price. Zach Witkoff, World Liberty Financial's chief executive and a co-founder, said in a post on X on Wednesday that Sun's legal claims "are entirely meritless, and World Liberty looks forward to getting the case thrown out promptly." "He engaged in misconduct that required World Liberty to take action to protect itself and its users," added Witkoff, who is the son of Steve Witkoff, U.S. Special Envoy for Peace Missions. Eric Trump, a son of the president and also a World Liberty co-founder, also posted to X on Wednesday. He wrote "The only thing more ridiculous than this lawsuit is spending $6 million on a banana duct-taped to a wall," a reference to Sun's November 2024 purchase of a piece of art called "Comedian" by Italian artist Maurizio Cattelan. A spokesperson for World Liberty Financial ​declined to comment on the lawsuit. A representative of the company had told Reuters earlier this week that Sun "is not an advisor at World Liberty Financial, and he has never held an operational role in the company." The White House did not respond to a request for comment. World Liberty is the most prominent of several lucrative crypto businesses co-founded or controlled by the Trump family, which has already made more than $1 billion from World Liberty, according to a Reuters analysis. World Liberty's bylaws state that 75% of the revenue from WLFI token sales is routed to the Trumps. World Liberty is under increasing scrutiny from some of its investors, who have complained for months about what they describe as the company's lack of ​transparency, centralized governance structure and failure to respond to community complaints, Reuters reported this month. In the lawsuit, Sun described himself as "one of World Liberty's anchor investors." World Liberty's structure means that the WLFI tokens Sun bought in 2024 are not equivalent to standard company shares. The tokens do not carry ownership in the company and holders are not entitled to dividends, although they do gain a limited say in the company's governance. SOURING RELATIONSHIP The lawsuit caps a dramatic deterioration of relations between Sun and World Liberty. In September, Sun claimed the company had frozen his token holdings, and earlier this month alleged in a post on social media platform X that World Liberty had secretly embedded what he described as a "backdoor blacklisting function" in the blockchain-based contracts used for the tokens. That gave World Liberty "unilateral power" to "freeze, restrict, and effectively confiscate the property rights" of token holders without cause or recourse, Sun wrote on X. World Liberty at that time responded to Sun's allegations with a post on X that said: "We have the contracts. We have the ⁠evidence. We have the truth. See you in court pal." The lawsuit said Sun "has long been (and remains) an ardent supporter of President Trump and the Trump family." FROZEN OUT The lawsuit alleges that World Liberty representatives "repeatedly contacted and pressured" Sun to invest additional capital in the venture between April and July 2025, including requests to commit to acquiring $200 million in a separate World Liberty stablecoin token and to acquire an equity stake in the company. Sun said in a post on X on Wednesday he had "tried in good faith" to resolve his complaints with World Liberty, adding its team "refused my requests to unfreeze my tokens and restore my rights as a token holder." A measure proposed by the company last week would restrict early investors holding a combined 17 billion tokens from being able to trade all of their tokens until 2030, a year after the president is scheduled to leave ​office. Sun said he "strongly opposes" the new governance proposal, but could not vote on it as World ​Liberty had frozen his early investor tokens. Sun has also invested heavily in President Trump's so-called meme coin. Trump has launched a slate of crypto-friendly policies since returning to the White House in January 2025. In March, the Securities and Exchange Commission settled a 2023 lawsuit against Sun for $10 million. The lawsuit had alleged fraud, selling unregistered crypto securities and hiding payments to celebrities to promote his products. Sun made no admission of wrongdoing. (Reporting by Tom Wilson in London, David Gauthier-Villars in Istanbul, Lawrence Delevingne in Boston and Shivani Tanna in Bengaluru; Additional reporting by Ankur Banerjee in Singapore; Editing by Tom Lasseter, Himani Sarkar, Clarence Fernandez and Catherine Evans)

Summary: U.S. Supreme Court rules unanimously for Michigan AG Dana Nessel Enbridge missed 30-day deadline to remove Line 5 case to federal court Justice Sotomayor emphasizes early resolution of removal questions A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled for Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel in her argument that Enbridge Energy waited too long to ask to move a lawsuit about twin pipelines running beneath the Straits of Mackinac to federal court from state court. The decision, announced on April 22 and less than two months after the court heard oral arguments in Washington, may revive a 7-year-old case Nessel brought in Ingham County to effectively block Enbridge from using Line 5, a 645-mile-long oil and natural gas pipeline system that runs from Wisconsin through Michigan and into Canada. It doesn't immediately settle any of the specific legal issues regarding the use of the pipelines, however. In that case, Nessel, who campaigned in 2018 in favor of shutting down the line at the bottom of the Straits of Mackinac, argued that Enbridge's operation of Line 5 violated state law and declared the 1953 easement granted to the state void, citing the risk of an oil spill and the consequences it could have. Enbridge has argued for decades that the line is safe and protected by an international treaty and has moved to build a new single pipeline that would be encased in a 21-foot-diameter tunnel at the bottom of the Straits. Before any action occurred in Nessel's 2019 case, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, in late 2020, issued an order to revoke the 1953 easement granted for the oil and natural gas pipeline as well and filed a lawsuit herself in state court. Enbridge then successfully had Whitmer's case moved to U.S. District Court under federal statute, noting the treaty with Canada involving Line 5 and other issues it said were better suited to be heard in a federal court. Whitmer dropped that case in late 2021, though Enbridge countersued Whitmer in an attempt to block her revocation of the 1953 easement, winning a summary judgment in that effort in a federal court in Michigan in late 2025. (Whitmer has asked the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati to reconsider that decision.) But it was only after Enbridge successfully got that earlier case by Whitmer moved to federal court that the company tried to move Nessel's case to federal court, citing the same reasons. The only problem is that it tried to do so more than two years after it was filed, missing a 30-day deadline. Enbridge argued that a legal concept known as "equitable tolling" applied, allowing for such a delay, effectively equating it to a statute of limitations which had been held in abeyance while the other transfer was decided and noting the international issues involved. "It’s not suffering for a state to have to litigate in federal court," John Bursch, a Grand Rapids lawyer and former Michigan solicitor general who represented Enbridge, said before the Supreme Court during arguments in February. He added that, as far as Enbridge was concerned, Congress didn't intend to "handcuff federal courts" when it came to deciding the best forum for such issues to be considered. But state officials had reason to argue the issue belonged in state court as well. A Michigan judge, for one, might be "better attuned to the state’s interests in environmental protection, recreation and the state’s economy," the American Bar Association said in a preview of the case. Nessel's office argued before the court in February that there was no valid reason for Enbridge to be allowed to blow past the 30-day delay, especially considering the federal statute allowing for removal to federal court didn't specifically grant one. To provide one in this case could open the door to delays for almost any reason, the state said. Arguing before the court in February, Ann Sherman, Nessel's solicitor general, said Congress never intended to give parties so much leeway in transferring cases. "This is not an area where Congress said federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction," she said. "We trust the state court to do it." A unanimous Supreme Court agreed, though it stopped short of deciding whether there were no reasons for delay under the removal statute other than those specifically enacted by Congress. Writing for the court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, "Enbridge cannot identify any sensible reason why Congress would have adopted so many express, specific equitable exceptions to (removing a civil case from state court to federal court) if equitable tolling was already available for belated removals across the board." "Allowing equitable tolling of (the statute's) deadline would undermine Congress’s manifest interest in resolving threshold removal questions early and conclusively," Sotomayor wrote. "Under the rule the court adopts today, plaintiffs that sue in state court usually can be confident that, after (the) deadline has elapsed, the forum question has been put to rest and the case will proceed in the chosen court. Under the rule Enbridge favors, to the contrary, the possibility of a late removal would hang over a case, generating uncertainty and risking significant waste of resources in one forum before a possible belated removal to another." Nessel didn't immediately react to the decision but it was cheered by officials with the Oil & Water Don't Mix Campaign, a coalition of several environmental groups working to close down Line 5 through the Straits. “This is a clear and pivotal win generated by the movement to shut down Line 5," said Sean McBrearty, the campaign's coordinator. “Now, this case will head back to state court, where it belongs. Thanks to Michigan’s attorney general, we are closer than ever to taking down a foreign fossil fuel giant that is putting 84 percent of North America’s available, fresh surface water at risk each day that Line 5 continues operating." Ryan Duffy, a spokesman for Enbridge, said, the decision aside, Line 5 remains regulated by the federal government, which conducts annual inspections and has identified "no safety issues that would warrant its shutdown." As to the Supreme Court's decision, he said a federal court "already concluded that the governor's efforts to shut down Line 5 were preempted" and that Nessel's state court case "has been stayed by stipulation of the parties pending the outcome of the governor’s appeal" of last year's federal court ruling. "Enbridge is committed to the safe operation of Line 5 and to working constructively with regulators and stakeholders," he added. Some other groups were displeased as well, with the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB), an association of small businesses, saying it puts in place a rigid time limit for removal to a federal court that wasn't there before. “Congress never intended for plaintiffs to use procedural gamesmanship and lawsuit manipulation to avoid federal jurisdiction,” said Beth Milito, vice president and executive director of NFIB’s Small Business Legal Center. “At first glance, this case may seem like inconsequential bureaucracy to the average American, but the court’s decision will have a very real impact on small business owners whose cases are appropriate for federal court.” This story was updated with additional information. Contact Todd Spangler: [email protected]. Follow him on X @tsspangler.

Summary: Commonwealth Court rules 4-3 against Medicaid abortion ban Judge Matthew S. Wolf authors majority opinion Plaintiffs include Planned Parenthood Keystone and women’s health clinics Pennsylvania’s Constitution grants the fundamental right to reproductive autonomy, a state court ruled April 20 in a long-running challenge to the commonwealth’s ban on Medicaid subsidies for abortion. In its 4-3 ruling in favor of a group of Pennsylvania women’s health clinics, the Commonwealth Court struck down the coverage exclusion for abortion contained in the state’s 1982 Abortion Control Act as unconstitutional sex-based discrimination. Although that finding was enough for the court to dispose of the case, the majority took an additional step of declaring that the right to abortion is fundamental. The state’s justification for any infringement on that right is subject to the highest degree of legal scrutiny, the court held. That means the state can restrict the right only when it can demonstrate compelling interest in doing so, the majority said. They sided with a plurality of state Supreme Court justices in a 2025 decision that kicked the case back to the lower Commonwealth Court. “We agree with providers that recognizing this fundamental right, as the plurality did, is necessary to restrict state government to its proper sphere, thus protecting our liberty,” Judge Matthew S. Wolf said in his 40-page majority opinion. “This will mean that the state will face judicial scrutiny of its attempts to coerce reproductive choice. Those choices are the people’s, not the government’s.” In the opinion, the majority also said state Attorney General Dave Sunday’s office had failed to show either a compelling state interest or that the exclusion was the least restrictive way to accomplish its interest. David S. Cohen, a Drexel University professor of constitutional law who assisted in litigation, said the finding of a fundamental right to abortion in the commonwealth is especially significant in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Louisiana decision. That 2022 decision overturned the nearly 50-year-old precedent in Roe v. Wade that established a right to abortion under the federal constitution. The underlying lawsuit was filed in 2019 by the Allegheny Reproductive Health Center, Allentown Women’s Center, Delaware County Women’s Center, Planned Parenthood Keystone and the organization’s southeastern and western Pennsylvania chapters. Since then, the lawsuit has been through Commonwealth Court and the state Supreme Court twice. In January 2024, the high court reversed the lower court’s 2021 decision dismissing the case. In that 3-2 decision, the Supreme Court overturned a 42-year-old decision that upheld the constitutionality of the Abortion Control Act’s ban on Medicaid-funded abortions except in cases of rape or incest. The Commonwealth Court cited that decision as the basis for dismissing the lawsuit. Justice Christine Donohue, author of the state’s highest court’s lead opinion, and Justice David Wecht agreed that “the right to reproductive autonomy, like other privacy rights, is fundamental.” Justice Kevin Dougherty, who concurred in the overall result of the decision, said he agreed with dissenting Chief Justice Debra Todd and Justice Sallie Mundy that the case was not about the right to abortion and it was not the right time to decide whether there is a fundamental right. He added the question was likely to return to the Supreme Court. Susan Frietsche, executive director of the Women’s Law Project in Pittsburgh, said the Medicaid coverage exclusion was the single largest barrier to abortion access in Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs noted the ban disproportionately affects low-income and minority women. “We moved a giant step in the direction of removing it,” Frietsche said, adding that it’s unclear whether Sunday, a Republican elected in 2024, would appeal the decision “But what is now in Pennsylvania law that I don’t believe an appeal would disturb, is the constitutional principle that equality of rights under the law guaranteed by our state Equal Rights Amendment includes reproductive rights,” Frietsche added. “And that is a big, significant and very meaningful win for the women of Pennsylvania.” Sunday’s spokesman said the attorney general’s office is reviewing the opinions. Cohen noted the court permitted Sunday to intervene in the case as a new attorney general. “It’s one thing, to intervene at a state being litigated, and it’s another, to take an appeal and spend taxpayer dollars to defend something to a court that has already, you know, strongly indicated that this law is unconstitutional,” Cohen said. While the defendant in the case is the state Department of Human Services, part of the executive branch, the Pennsylvania attorney general has the authority to defend state law under the Commonwealth Attorneys Act. That law delineates the responsibilities of the attorney general and the governor’s appointed general counsel. Gov. Josh Shapiro, who is seeking reelection this year, announced following the Supreme Court’s ruling that DHS would no longer defend the abortion coverage exclusion. “I’ve long opposed this unconstitutional ban,” Shapiro said in a social media post. “I did not defend it ― because a woman’s ability to access reproductive care should never be determined by her income.” State Treasurer Stacy Garrity, the presumptive Republican nominee for governor, responded strongly to the ruling in a series of X posts. “The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court’s decision to force our tax dollars to pay for abortions is not only misguided, it is immoral. It is also deeply concerning that Governor Josh Shapiro’s administration withdrew as respondents in this case,” Garrity posted, also noting the Abortion Control Act was passed with bipartisan support and that using Medicaid funding for abortion would violate a federal ban. While Sunday’s filings said he accepts the Supreme Court’s holding that the Medicaid exclusion is sex-based discrimination, he offered three state interests that he argued are compelling and for which blocking coverage was the least intrusive means of achieving. Sunday argued the state has an inherent right to protect the life and health of a fetus subject to abortion, an interest in protecting the health of women and “not violating the conscience of those who oppose abortion.” The Commonwealth Court majority rejected each of the attorney general’s office’s arguments, saying it had not shown they are compelling interests. It noted the providers argued persuasively that many other government-funded initiatives would serve achieve those goals without restricting reproductive autonomy. “Any state interest in promoting carrying a pregnancy to term is furthered at least as well by state investment in maternal and infant healthcare, and in childcare and other resources for new mothers, as it is by the Coverage Exclusion,” Wolf wrote. Peter Hall has been a journalist in Pennsylvania and New Jersey for more than 20 years. This article first appeared on Pennsylvania Capital-Star, part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization. This article originally appeared on Erie Times-News: Pa. court strikes down Medicaid abortion ban as unconstitutional Reporting by Peter Hall, Pennsylvania Capital-Star / Erie Times-News USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect