A Florida federal judge tossed out a $15 billion defamation lawsuit filed by President Donald Trump against The New York Times in a stunning decision on Friday.
U.S. District Judge Steven Merryday made the bizarre declaration that Trump's lawsuit was overly long and full of “tedious and burdensome” language, which seems like an odd judgment considering the inherently long and tedious nature of litigation.
Judge Merryday gave Trump's legal team 28 days to file an amended complaint that should not exceed 40 pages. The option to amend the complaint seems to further reinforce suspicions that this is an attempt to undermine justice and delay Trump's case.
Judge Merryday didn't rule on the merits of Trump's defamation case, but instead is kicking the can down the road.
In his decision, Judge Merryday wrote, "A complaint is not a megaphone for public relations or a podium for a passionate oration at a political rally. This action will begin, will continue, and will end in accord with the rules of procedure and in a professional and dignified manner.”
Defamation Case Lives On
A spokesman for Trump's legal team, Aaron Harison, confirmed that the lawsuit would continue “in accordance with the judge’s direction on logistics."
The lawsuit is pointed at four New York Times journalists and cited a book and three articles published within a two-month period prior to the 2024 election that Trump's team argue defamed Trump and attempted to influence the outcome of the election.
A book written by Times reporters Russ Buettner and Susanne Craig focused on Trump’s finances and his pre-presidency role in “The Apprentice," which was partly but far from entirely responsible for Trump's nationally recognizable profile.
Trump's lawsuit posits that Buettner and Craig “maliciously peddled the fact-free narrative” that "The Apprentice" was what made Trump a national celebrity. The article also included defamatory claims about Trump’s early business dealings and his father, Fred.
This lawsuit is one of many lawsuits filed against major media organizations, including ABC News, CBS News’ “60 Minutes,” and the Wall Street Journal.
Trump has already scored out of court settlements but the New York Times has chosen to go to court and is banking on a friendly anti-Trump judge to protect them from a serious financial hit.
Winning a defamation case is extremely difficult but Trump has already secured major wins in his settlements with ABC and CBS. Should he succeed against the New York Times, it will usher in an era where individuals have more power to hold the media accountable.
The media claims that these defamation lawsuits are an attack on the 1st Amendment but the media has held the power to ruin lives and dominate political discourse for decades.
The media's monopoly on public discourse has been to the detriment of the nation and the fundamental Constitutional freedoms of the average American. America's journalist class has gotten away with lying for years, and it's time for consequences.
The Supreme Court will hear an appeal from the Trump administration regarding whether President Donald Trump had the authority to remove Lisa Cook from the board of governors of the Federal Reserve, Bloomberg reported. The high court was petitioned in an emergency order filed Thursday to determine the validity of the unprecedented action.
Some see the Republicans' eagerness to remove Cook as a form of tinkering with the Federal Reserve. In the 112-year history of America's central bank, this is the first time a president has initiated such a move to the governing board, and a lower appeals court refused to uphold Trump's decision.
However, it's more than just a power play from Trump. Cook has claimed two homes in different states as her "primary residence" to allegedly reap the benefits of a lower interest rate on her mortgage. Conservative attorney James Burnham said in a post Thursday to X, formerly Twitter,outlining the case that it was "no surprise" that the matter ended up at the high court.
No surprise but @TheJusticeDept has just arrived at the Supreme Court seeking emergency relief in the ongoing battle over whether the President can remove Lisa Cook as a Federal Reserve Governor based on seemingly credible evidence of mortgage fraud. Lets unpack. 1/ pic.twitter.com/OdAIU6ORA1
— James Burnham (@BurnhamDC) September 18, 2025
While the issue continues to be hashed out in the courts, Cook has dug her heels in, saying she refused to be "bullied" by Trump into leaving, the Associated Press reported. Abbe Lowell, a high-profile attorney representing Cook, said her client "will continue to carry out her sworn duties as a Senate-confirmed Board Governor."
Meanwhile, Trump nominated Stephen Miran to replace Cook on the Federal Reserve Board. Senate Republicans confirmed Miran to the position on Monday, and now both Cook and her replacement voted to cut interest rates at the Fed on Wednesday.
If she remains on the board, Cook will be able to vote on the interest rate setting committee's vote at the end of next month. However, it's still remains to be seen whether she'll stay as Trump first sought to get rid of Cook on Aug. 25 after alleging that she committed mortgage fraud, Fox News reported.
Bill Pulte, whom Trump appointed to the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, filed two referrals to the Justice Department after uncovering problems with her mortgage documents, which listed at least two homes as her primary residences in Michigan and Georgia. These purchases were made before then-President Joe Biden appointed her to the Fed, but the recent Justice Department referrals led to Trump firing Cook.
Cook sued Trump in federal court on August 28, also naming Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in the lawsuit. Notably, Cook's lawsuit did not dispute or even address the allegations against her.
Cook isn't the only official to have a problem with her mortgage documents. As the New York Post reported, Pulte's investigation also found that Trump's nemesis, New York State Attorney General Letitia James, allegedly played games with disclosing her living situation to obtain a favorable mortgage rate.
In 2023, James purchased a home in Virginia and one in Brooklyn while serving as the state's attorney in New York. She allegedly "falsified records" stating that the property in Norfolk, Virginia would be her "principal residence." Jamees has denied the claims, calling the charges "baseless" and a stunt from Trump's "revenge tour" against her.
She's right that Trump has reason to go after her, considering the civil fraud case against him and his company, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't pursue justice against her for something she allegedly did wrong. When asked about the case, Trump made it seem like it wasn't on his radar as a priority.
"We’re going to see what happens. I am not following it very closely. It looks to me like she’s very guilty of something, but I really don’t know," Trump said of the grand jury investigation. US Attorney Erik Siebert, who has yet to bring charges, resigned after Trump made it clear he wanted him out over his inaction.
Trump should have a say in who he fires, especially if it involves the person in charge of setting mortgage interest rates, who allegedly conducts herself in a way that circumvents the rules. The high court will weigh in, but the lower court has already blocked his action, signaling a reluctance to allow it.
President Donald Trump has intensified his criticism of former President Joe Biden’s use of an autopen to sign thousands of pardons, sparking a heated debate over the legality and transparency behind these actions, as Fox News reports.
The controversy revolves around Trump’s claims that Biden did not personally authorize many of the 4,245 clemency acts signed during his administration, particularly those finalized in his last months in office using an autopen machine.
Trump’s objections to Biden’s use of an autopen, a device that replicates a person’s signature through programmed movements, have been ongoing for months.
Trump argues that the thousands of pardons signed this way are invalid because Biden was unaware of the specific documents being authorized.
During his recent trip to the U.K., Trump reiterated his stance to reporters.
He stated, "It was illegally used. He never gave the orders. He never told them what to do."
Trump further added, "And I guess the only one he signed, or one of the few he signed, was the pardon for his son."
The criticism centers on the process during Biden’s tenure, where an autopen, capable of using various pens like ballpoints or markers, was employed for signing important orders and pardons.
A spokesperson for Biden did not immediately provide a comment when approached by Fox News Digital regarding these allegations.
According to a July report from the New York Times, several significant preemptive pardons were finalized in Biden’s last days in office with the approval of his chief of staff, Jeff Zients.
While Biden reportedly decided on these clemency acts during a meeting, it was Zients who gave the final go-ahead for the autopen to be used in cases involving prominent figures like Anthony Fauci, former chief medical advisor, and Gen. Mark Milley, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Biden, however, told the New York Times that he personally made every clemency decision independently.
Data from the Pew Research Center shows that Biden granted a total of 4,245 acts of clemency during his presidency, with 96% of these occurring between October 2024 and January 2025, his final months in office.
In contrast, a White House official previously informed Fox News Digital that Trump uses his own hand signature for all legally binding documents. However, he has admitted to using an autopen for personal letters.
Adding to the scrutiny, Zients appeared before the House Oversight Committee this week to address concerns over Biden’s mental acuity during his term, adding to what is sure to be continued controversy.
President Donald Trump is urging the Supreme Court to let him fire Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve over credible allegations of mortgage fraud.
The Trump administration is asking Chief Justice John Roberts to grant an emergency request to fire Cook while litigation continues.
So far, Cook has been protected by judicial intervention from Biden-appointed judges. The administration accuses lower courts of engaging in "judicial interference with the president’s removal authority."
Trump moved to fire Cook last month, citing evidence that she listed two different properties as her primary residence simultaneously on her mortgage applications.
Such an arrangement could be used to fraudulently obtain favorable loan terms. Cook has yet to provide any explanation for the discrepancy.
A lone circuit judge, Gregory Katsas, dissented from an appeals court decision on Monday that allowed Cook to remain for now.
“The president plainly invoked a cause relating to Cook’s conduct, ability, fitness or competence,” wrote Judge Katsas, a Trump appointee. “The allegations against Cook could constitute mortgage fraud if she acted knowingly, and that is a felony offense.”
The Trump administration argues that the Federal Reserve Act provides the president broad and "unreviewable" power to determine what constitutes "cause" for removal.
"Put simply, the President may reasonably determine that interest rates paid by the American people should not be set by a Governor who appears to have lied about facts material to the interest rates she secured for herself -- and refuses to explain the apparent misrepresentations," Trump's Solicitor General John D. Sauer wrote in his brief to the Supreme Court.
A district court judge appointed by Joe Biden, Jia Cobb, ruled that Cook cannot be fired over conduct that occurred before she joined the Fed in 2022.
"That rationale is so flawed that the D.C. Circuit did not adopt it and even Cook did not press it," Sauer wrote of Cobbs's logic.
The administration argues that lower courts are tying the president's hands with a dangerous theory that affords extraordinary due process to high-ranking federal employees.
"The lower courts’ primary theory is that principal officers are akin to teachers or lower-level civil servants and can thus claim a property interest and an entitlement to notice and a hearing before removal. This theory is untenable and would wreak havoc on sensitive presidential decision-making," Sauer wrote.
Trump's critics see his push to fire Cook as a threat to the political independence of the central bank, which has significant power over the U.S. economy.
Needless to say, the stakes in this case are high. It is unclear how the Supreme Court may see the matter, but the justices have taken a generally broad view of executive power, upholding Trump's firings of various independent agency heads. At the same time, the justices have hinted that the Fed is a special, “uniquely structured" entity.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A widely recognized and honored constitutional expert has delivered a "Bravo" to a judge who has ruled that a lawsuit by parents against a school where officials allegedly deceived them, withholding the truth about the school's gender ideology and officials' manipulation of a student, can go forward.
"There is a major ruling, Mead v. Rockford Public School Dist., a potentially precedent-setting case on parental rights in our public schools. Judge Paul Maloney (W.D. Mich.) ruled that Plaintiffs Dan and Jennifer Mead could move forward with their claims that the Rockford Public School district concealed changes to the gender identification of their biological daughter, identified as G.M. As I have previously written, parental rights are shaping up as a major battleground for the Supreme Court after years of decisions in the lower court undermining parental controls and disclosures," explained expert Jonathan Turley, who not only has testified before Congress as an expert on the Constitution but has represented members in court on constitutional issues.
He pointed out, "A century ago, the nation's highest court ruled in Pierce v. Society of Sisters that 'the child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.'"
Further, in 2000, he said, in its Troxel v. Granville decision, "the court recognized 'the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.'"
He said, "There is no greater natural right than the right to control the upbringing of our children. This right was not granted to us by the grace of the state. It rests with us as human beings. It is part of a panoply of natural rights embraced by the framers − a commitment made nearly 250 years ago in our Declaration of Independence."
The Michigan court, under Judge Paul Maloney, now has recognized a "viable" claim by the parents.
"The court noted that the parents were alleging a key element in the case that the District intentionally deceived them and found that these "allegations show some amount of coercion or interference from the District, which implicates Plaintiffs' right to make fundamental decisions for [daughter] G.M,'" he said.
"Bravo, Judge Maloney."
At Reason, columnist Eugene Volokh said the district started treating the girl as a boy, with a name change and more, "but did not inform G.M.'s parents."
The court now has allowed the parent's 14th Amendment claim to go forward.
"The right of parents to direct their children's upbringing originated from three Supreme Court cases: Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), and Farrington v. Tokushige (1927)…. The Court affirmed the life of this right in Troxel v. Granville (2000). There, the Court held that 'the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children [] is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interest recognized by this Court,'" the column said.
In this case, the plaintiffs charge "the District intentionally deceived them. Plaintiffs claim that the District went beyond failing to notify them of their child's gender transition. According to the complaint, the District 'took affirmative steps to deceive the Meads.' Taking complaint in its entirety, Plaintiffs' allegations show some amount of coercion or interference from the District, which implicates Plaintiffs' right to make fundamental decisions for G.M…."
Further, Reason charged, "Plaintiffs also allege that the District's actions amount to medical health treatment. They plead that the District engaged G.M. in a 'psychosocial intervention for gender dysphoria.'"
And, "The District's policy and practice allowed school officials to deceive the child's parents, which undermined their ability to choose appropriate medical treatment for their child (a third-party therapist or psychologist). The District's policy and practice 'undermines a meaningful role for parents if the child decides his or her biological gender is not preferential,'" the column said.
A report from the ADF, which brought the case on behalf of the parents, explained the school even "had altered the girl's official records to remove references to the district's actions before sending the records home."
"The Meads only discovered the district's actions when an employee unintentionally failed to completely alter a report about their daughter before sharing it with them. By concealing this important information, the district violated the Meads' fundamental parental rights. The U.S. Constitution protects their right as parents to make decisions about the upbringing, education, and health care of their children," ADF reported.
"Parents, not the government, have the right to direct the upbringing, education, and health care of their children," said ADF lawyer Kate Anderson. "Schools should never deliberately hide vital information from parents, yet that's exactly what the Rockford Public School District did. District employees didn't even notify Dan and Jennifer—let alone seek their consent—before beginning to call their young daughter by a masculine name and male pronouns."
In a fiery outburst on social media, President Donald Trump has accused former special counsel Jack Smith and the Biden administration of targeting conservative organizations like Turning Point USA with politically motivated investigations.
This controversy centers on Trump's claims of a weaponized Justice Department, Smith's investigations into Republican groups, and ensuing legal and political battles with Senate Republicans.
The issue gained traction earlier this year when Trump took to Truth Social on Wednesday to express outrage over an investigation into Turning Point USA, a nonprofit co-founded by Charlie Kirk in 2012.
Trump questioned the motives behind the probe, suggesting it was an attempt to silence conservative voices.
He stated, “Why was the wonderful Turning Point under INVESTIGATION by ‘Deranged’ Jack Smith and the Corrupt & Incompetent Biden Administration?”
In another post, he added, “They tried to force Charlie, and many other people and movements, out of business. They Weaponized the Justice Department against Sleepy Joe Biden’s Political Opponents, including ME!”
The investigation, part of a broader election interference probe by Smith and the Biden administration, targeted Republican-led organizations and donors who backed Trump’s claims regarding the 2020 election.
Among the efforts was a specific operation dubbed “Arctic Frost,” which examined 92 GOP-affiliated groups and individuals.
On Tuesday, Senator Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released audio and records related to this probe, shedding light on its extensive reach.
Grassley also highlighted past actions during the Trump administration, noting the removal of certain FBI agents for alleged partisan behavior.
He remarked, “Since the Trump administration took power, many FBI agents have been removed. The removals included agents and prosecutors who became partisan weapons that lost their way, and I’ve made records public to prove it.”
Additionally, Senate Republicans initiated a watchdog investigation earlier this year into Smith, alleging violations of the Hatch Act, though Smith’s legal team dismissed these claims as baseless.
Smith, who resigned from his special counsel position earlier this year ahead of Trump’s inauguration, has staunchly defended his actions in the 2020 election investigations.
He asserted, “The ultimate decision to bring charges against Mr. Trump was mine. It is a decision I stand behind fully.”
In a January letter, Smith further clarified, “To all who know me well, the claim from Mr. Trump that my decisions as a prosecutor were influenced or directed by the Biden administration or other political actors is, in a word, laughable.”
President Trump has asked the Supreme Court to uphold his firing of Lisa Cook, setting up a high-stakes case on executive power, the AP reported.
There is a good chance that the top court will side with Trump and reverse the D.C. Circuit's 2-1 ruling that allowed Cook to stay, for now.
Cook has been credibly accused of mortgage fraud by filing contradictory applications claiming two different homes as her primary residence, simultaneously.
The Federal Reserve Act states that the president may remove Fed governors "for cause," and the Trump administration says that the appearance of disreputable conduct by Cook is more than enough to satisfy that standard.
In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration lamented the lower courts' intervention as another case of "improper judicial interference with the president’s removal authority."
A Biden-appointed district judge, Jia Cobb, blocked Trump from firing Cook because the alleged fraud occurred before she joined the Fed. The administration says the misconduct, regardless of when it happened, "indisputably calls into question Cook’s trustworthiness and whether she can be a responsible steward of the interest rates and economy.”
An appeals court ruled against Trump, with US Circuit Judge Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee, dissenting. The other two judges who sided with Cook are Biden appointees.
In his opinion, Katsas noted the absurd consequences of the district court's logic, which would prevent the removal of a Fed governor who “committed murder before taking office” or who “bribed a Senator to ensure confirmation.”
“The president plainly invoked a cause relating to Cook’s conduct, ability, fitness, or competence,” Katsas wrote. “The allegations against Cook could constitute mortgage fraud if she acted knowingly, and that is a felony offense."
Another issue in the case concerns due process.
Judge Katsas rejected Cobb's claim that Cook has a property interest in her job that entitles her to special procedural protections. "As a principal officer of the United States,” he said, “she serves in a position of public ‘trust’ that creates no property rights.”
The Trump administration adopted Katsas' logic, drawing a distinction between lower-ranking civil servants and Senate-confirmed "principal officers" like Cook who do not receive the same due process protections.
“The lower courts’ primary theory,” wrote Solicitor General John D. Sauer, “is that principal officers are akin to teachers or lower-level civil servants and can thus claim a property interest and an entitlement to notice and a hearing before removal. This theory,” he contended, “is untenable and would wreak havoc on sensitive presidential decision-making.”
The Supreme Court has been broadly sympathetic to Trump's view of executive power, allowing him to fire various heads of independent agencies.
On the other hand, the court did briefly note earlier this year that the Fed has a "unique" structure.
If the president can appoint Fed governors, but not fire them over credible wrongdoing, then the Fed answers to nobody. It seems doubtful the Supreme Court would approve such a blatantly unconstitutional scheme, but we will just have to see what they decide.
The Supreme Court of Georgia has permanently barred Fulton County prosecutor Fani Willis from pursuing her botched "election interference" case against President Trump.
The president celebrated the court's 4-3 ruling, which upheld a decision that disqualified Willis over her affair with another prosecutor.
“What Fani Willis did to innocent people, patriots that love our country, what she did to them by indicting them and destroying them, she should be put in jail,” Trump said.
A judge initially allowed Willis to remain on the case as long as her lover, Nathan Wade, stepped aside. But the appeals court disqualified Willis in December, finding an "appearance of impropriety."
Willis appealed, arguing that the mere appearance of a conflict of interest was not enough to disqualify her. But Trump's attorneys argued that she needed to be taken off the case to "purge the taint of impropriety."
"Willis' misconduct during the investigation and prosecution of President Trump was egregious and she deserved nothing less than disqualification," Steve Sadow, Trump's attorney in the Georgia case, said in a statement.
The Supreme Court's ruling is another blow to the failed effort by Democrats to prosecute Trump, who overcame four criminal cases to win the presidency in a historic comeback last year.
The Georgia case was the most ambitious of four, charging Trump and 18 others in a sweeping conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election.
In a stroke of branding genius, Trump turned his mugshot in Fulton County into a symbol of defiance.
The case began to unravel after Willis was caught having an affair with Wade, whom she hired to lead the case. Wade was paid handsomely for his work despite little experience as a prosecutor.
The lovers defended their relationship in court, with Willis claiming she reimbursed Wade in cash for extravagant trips they took together.
While another prosecutor could take Willis' place, few expect the sprawling case to move forward, especially now that Trump is back in the White House. 14 others are still facing charges.
“I hope that whoever is assigned to handle the case will have the courage to do what the evidence and the law demand,” Willis said in a statement.
In the wake of the epic victory, Trump called for Willis to be prosecuted for weaponizing her office.
"She should be put in jail; she's a criminal; Fani Willis is a criminal," Trump told reporters.
Tyler Robinson confessed to his gay lover that he murdered Charlie Kirk and provided indications of a motive, according to newly released texts.
The shocking messages were provided to police by Robinson's transgender boyfriend, Lance Twiggs, the New York Post reported. Robinson has been charged with aggravated murder, exposing him to the death penalty, and a slew of other charges stemming from his efforts to cover up the crime.
"You weren’t the one who did it right???” wrote Twiggs.
“I am, I’m sorry,” Robinson responded.
Twiggs is cooperating with police, and he has not been accused of wrongdoing, although his failure to alert the authorities has raised questions.
“There is generally no duty to report a crime,” former prosecutor Neama Rahmani told The New York Post. “Now, obviously, people can be charged as co-conspirators, accessories, principals, aiders and abetters. But just knowing that a crime has been committed — even murder — is not sufficient to hold someone criminally liable.”
In the immediate aftermath of the September 10 assassination, Robinson told his lover and roommate to look for an incriminating note under his desk.
Twiggs located the note, which reads, "I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I’m going to take it.”
In the messages, Twiggs expressed shock and asked why Robinson did it - to which he responded that he "had enough of his [Kirk's] hatred" and "some hate can't be negotiated out."
Robinson also told Twiggs that engravings he left on the bullet casings, including anti-fascist inscriptions, were "mostly a big meme."
He fretted about being unable to recover his rifle, which he had discarded in a wooded area, and questioned what he would tell his "die-hard MAGA" father, who reached out to ask about the gun.
“my dad wants photos of the rifle … he says grandpa wants to know who has what, the feds released a photo of the rifle, and it is very unique. he’s calling me rn, not answering," Robinson wrote.
Robinson ended his text confession by telling Twiggs to delete the chats, hire a lawyer, and "stay silent."
In addition to murder, Robinson has been charged with obstruction, witness tampering, felony discharge of a firearm causing serious bodily injury, and commission of a violent offense in the presence of children.
The obstruction charges come from Robinson discarding his clothing and the rifle, which he abandoned at the scene wrapped in a towel.
The FBI is looking into whether anyone had advance knowledge of the attack, which has laid bare the radical left's troubling embrace of political violence.
Many on the left have tried to paint Robinson as right-wing, without evidence.
While police have not identified an exact motive, Robinson's twisted belief that Kirk deserved to be killed for "spreading hate" plainly echoes the radical left, which has glorified the horrific murder in the same terms.
According to charging documents, Robinson's mother told police that her son had moved to the left and became "more pro-gay and pro-trans" over the past year. She said his relationship with a male led to discussions within the family and particularly between Robinson and his conservative father who, the mother said, have "very different" views.
Actress Ellen DeGeneres is facing a lawsuit that accuses her of "negligent conduct" leading to the plaintiff's "serious personal injuries" in a 2023 car crash, Fox News reported. The plaintiff claims DeGeneres "t-boned" her after allegedly running through a four-way stop sign in Santa Barbara County.
The woman who filed the complaint stated that she was driving her Tesla on October 16, 2023, on Evans Avenue, en route to the intersection with Ortega Hill Road, when the accident occurred. She was wearing her seatbelt at the time of the crash but says she was injured after DeGeneres ran into her car after making no attempt to stop.
"This intersection is controlled by stop signs in all directions. Plaintiff stopped for her stop sign," the complaint said, noting that the plaintiff "made sure there were no other vehicles at the intersection and it was her way to proceed." Unfortunately, DeGeneres allegedly did not stop.
"As she was proceeding straight through the intersection, suddenly and without any warning, plaintiff's vehicle was t-boned from the right by the vehicle driven by Ellen DeGeneres," causing the plaintiff's injuries. "Ellen DeGeneres entered the intersection without stopping at the stop sign," the complaint alleges.
An attorney for the plaintiff claimed the former talk show host's "negligent conduct fell below the standard of care of a reasonable person in that defendants negligently caused, or contributed to causing plaintiff's vehicle to be collided with by the defendants' vehicle," suggesting a disregard for the safety of others. "Defendants and their conduct was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff's multiple serious personal injuries and damages stemming therefrom," the attorney further alleged.
The damages include "loss of enjoyment of life, emotional distress, and anxiety," as well as actual damages for medical expenses, hospital bills, lost wages, loss of future earnings, and other general damages. While this is a legal threshold, it could also be seen as a reflection on DeGeneres's overall character.
Although anyone can be accused of causing injuries in an auto accident, the circumstances fit with longstanding allegations about DeGeneres's terrible behavior and her blatant disregard for the wellbeing of others. After years on air playing the nice woman, it came to light in 2020 that DeGeneres was actually a tyrant on the set, targeting male employees for her ire when they spoke to her wife, Portia de Rossi.
Staffers said those who crossed DeGeneres would feel the "Ellen gaze" and thought of her as "a queen searching for her next execution." A former cameraman for the show said of DeGeneres that, "She was terrifying."
At the time, DeGeneres attempted to save her reputation by making an on-air apology, but the damage had been done. With her career and reputation in tatters, DeGeneres moved to the U.K. with de Rossi in 2024, citing President Donald Trump's election to a second term as a reason to flee the U.S.
At the time, DeGeneres blamed her hasty exit on Trump's election, though by then her career was over and her relevance greatly diminished. The 67-year-old has presented her move as an opportunity that gave her a new lease on life. Shortly after the move, DeGeneres made a schmaltzy post honoring de Rossi on Instagram.
On Dec. 1, 2024, DeGeneres wrote, "20 years ago today we began this relationship, not realizing what a long, beautiful adventure this would be. You are the best thing that ever happened in my life. You take care of me. You help me see the good in everything," she said of de Rossi.
"You help to guide me and pick me up when I feel off or down. You are a beautiful soul that I am so very grateful to have as a partner to navigate this crazy life with. My wife. My best friend. The love of my life. Thank you for being you and loving me. So happy we get to travel and explore the world together in the next 20 years, and looking forward to our first snowy Christmas," DeGeneres gushed. Nobody stateside has missed the pair.
View this post on Instagram
DeGeneres has earned her terrible reputation through her own actions while running a talk show. It will remain to be seen whether she will be held responsible for the car crash and the injuries it caused, but the allegations are enough to add to the existing mountain of evidence that DeGeneres is indeed not a very nice person.