A federal jury has convicted Asif Merchant, also known as Asif Raza Merchant, of murder-for-hire and terrorism offences linked to a plot to assassinate U.S. politicians and government officials.
The U.S. Department of Justice said Merchant travelled to the United States on behalf of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to recruit individuals to carry out the killings before the plan was disrupted by law enforcement.
Authorities said the investigation prevented any attack from taking place and resulted in Merchant’s arrest in July 2024.
What Happened
According to the Justice Department and court filings, Merchant travelled to the United States in April 2024 to recruit individuals capable of carrying out an assassination plot targeting American political figures.
Investigators say Merchant contacted an acquaintance in New York whom he believed could assist with the scheme. The individual instead alerted law enforcement and began cooperating with investigators as a confidential source.
During meetings in New York in early June 2024, Merchant allegedly outlined a plan involving several criminal activities.
Court filings state that these included stealing documents from a target’s home, staging a protest at a political rally, and arranging the killing of a politician or government official.
The confidential source later introduced Merchant to two individuals he believed were hired assassins. In reality, they were undercover law-enforcement officers.
According to prosecutors, Merchant told the individuals that the identity of the intended victim would be provided after he had left the United States and communicated with them from overseas.
Court documents further state that Merchant provided $5,000 in cash as an advance payment connected to the planned assassination scheme.
Investigators say Merchant also conducted internet searches about political rallies and reviewed security arrangements before the planned attack.
Merchant later arranged to leave the United States on 12 July 2024, but federal agents arrested him before he departed the country.
The Government’s Case
Prosecutors argued that Merchant travelled to the United States as part of a mission linked to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
According to the Justice Department, Merchant testified during the trial that the IRGC had sent him to the United States to arrange political assassinations and obtain documents.
Authorities said the case demonstrated how coordinated intelligence and law-enforcement operations can disrupt potential attacks before they are carried out.
Attorney General Pamela Bondi said the investigation showed the Justice Department’s continued focus on identifying and preventing terrorism threats targeting the United States.
FBI Director Kash Patel said the case illustrates the role of federal law-enforcement partnerships in detecting and preventing foreign-linked plots against individuals inside the country.
Legal Exposure and Penalties
Merchant was convicted by a federal jury of:
According to the Justice Department, Merchant faces a potential sentence of up to life imprisonment following the conviction.
A sentencing date has not yet been announced.
The offence of attempting to commit an act of terrorism transcending national boundaries is commonly used in U.S. national security prosecutions involving alleged plots by foreign actors targeting individuals or institutions connected to the United States.
What Happens Next
The Justice Department framed the case as a national security prosecution involving an operative linked to a foreign government-connected organisation.
The conviction reflects the U.S. government’s continued use of federal criminal statutes, including murder-for-hire and terrorism offences, to disrupt alleged plots connected to foreign intelligence networks operating inside the United States.
Authorities also highlighted the role of undercover investigations and cooperation between multiple law-enforcement agencies in identifying and preventing potential attacks.
Following the jury’s verdict, the case will now proceed to the sentencing phase in federal court.
Merchant faces a potential sentence of up to life imprisonment, although the final penalty will be determined by the court at a future sentencing hearing.
Case details
Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Case: United States v. Asif Merchant
Case number: 1:24-mj-00467
Case posture: Jury conviction
Lead investigative agencies: FBI and partner law-enforcement agencies
DOJ components: National Security Division and U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York
Date of announcement: 6 March 2026
People Also Ask
Who is Asif Merchant?
Asif Merchant, also known as Asif Raza Merchant, is an Iranian intelligence operative convicted in the United States of terrorism and murder-for-hire offences linked to a plot targeting American politicians.
What was Asif Merchant accused of?
U.S. prosecutors said Merchant travelled to the United States to recruit individuals to carry out political assassinations and other criminal acts before the plot was disrupted by law enforcement.
What sentence could Asif Merchant receive?
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Merchant faces a potential sentence of up to life imprisonment following his conviction.
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has ruled that foreign states cannot rely on sovereign immunity to block the enforcement of arbitration awards issued under the ICSID Convention.
In Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.à.r.l and another v Kingdom of Spain, decided on 4 March 2026, the Court unanimously dismissed Spain’s appeal and confirmed that ICSID awards can be registered and enforced in the United Kingdom without states invoking immunity to prevent the process.
The ruling clarifies how the State Immunity Act 1978 interacts with the UK’s obligations under the Arbitration (International Investment Disputes) Act 1966.
For investors and arbitration practitioners, the judgment reinforces London’s role as a jurisdiction where treaty arbitration awards can be recognised even when sovereign respondents resist enforcement.
The Dispute
The case arose from investment arbitration proceedings brought by Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.à.r.l and Energia Termosolar B.V. against Spain.
The investors alleged that regulatory changes affecting Spain’s renewable-energy support regime breached the country’s obligations under international investment law.
An arbitral tribunal constituted under the ICSID framework ruled in favour of the investors and awarded approximately €101 million in compensation.
The investors then applied to register the award in England under the Arbitration (International Investment Disputes) Act 1966, which implements the UK’s obligations under the ICSID Convention.
Spain sought to have the registration set aside, arguing that as a sovereign state it was protected by immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978 and could not be subjected to enforcement proceedings in English courts.
The dispute had previously reached the Court of Appeal, which rejected Spain’s argument and held that participation in the ICSID Convention entails acceptance that awards may be recognised and enforced in other contracting states.
Spain appealed that decision to the UK Supreme Court.
The appeal was heard together with a related case involving Republic of Zimbabwe v Border Timbers Ltd, which raised similar issues concerning sovereign immunity and the enforcement of ICSID arbitration awards.
What the Court Decided
The Supreme Court dismissed Spain’s appeal.
The Court held that a state that has agreed to the ICSID Convention cannot rely on sovereign immunity to prevent the registration of an ICSID arbitration award in the courts of another contracting state.
The justices concluded that registering an ICSID award under the Arbitration (International Investment Disputes) Act 1966 does not involve a substantive determination of the dispute by the court.
Instead, the registration process is a procedural step required by the Convention to give effect to the award.
Because the court does not reconsider the merits of the underlying dispute, the process does not constitute the type of judicial determination from which sovereign immunity would normally protect a foreign state.
The ruling therefore upheld the earlier judgment of the Court of Appeal and confirmed that the investors were entitled to register the €101 million award in England.
How the Court Got There
The case required the Court to interpret the relationship between two legal frameworks: the ICSID Convention, which establishes a global system for investor–state arbitration, and the State Immunity Act 1978, which governs when foreign states can be subject to the jurisdiction of UK courts.
Article 54 of the ICSID Convention requires contracting states to recognise ICSID awards as binding and enforce them as if they were final judgments of their own courts.
Spain argued that this obligation did not amount to consent to domestic court proceedings and that sovereign immunity should therefore prevent enforcement in the UK.
The investors argued that participation in the ICSID system necessarily involves acceptance that domestic courts in other member states will play a limited role in recognising and enforcing awards.
The Supreme Court agreed with the investors’ position. It held that the ICSID Convention creates a self-contained enforcement regime in which national courts perform a narrowly defined administrative function when registering awards.
Because the courts do not re-examine the underlying dispute, the process does not engage the core concerns that sovereign immunity is intended to protect.
Why the Ruling Matters
For investors pursuing claims against states under bilateral investment treaties, arbitration awards are only meaningful if they can ultimately be enforced.
States sometimes resist payment even after losing arbitration, forcing investors to seek recognition of awards in national courts around the world.
The Supreme Court’s decision confirms that English courts will give effect to the ICSID enforcement framework established by treaty and implemented in domestic legislation.
The ruling therefore reinforces the UK’s position as an important jurisdiction for the enforcement of international arbitration awards.
Separate Opinions
The appeal was heard by a panel consisting of Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Briggs, Lord Sales, Lord Leggatt and Lady Simler.
The Court delivered a unanimous judgment dismissing Spain’s appeal.
What Happens Next
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, the investors remain entitled to rely on the registered arbitration award in England.
The judgment resolves Spain’s attempt to invoke sovereign immunity to prevent the registration of the ICSID award under UK law.
More broadly, the decision confirms that ICSID arbitration awards can be registered and enforced in English courts and that states party to the ICSID Convention cannot rely on sovereign immunity to block that process.
Case details
Court: Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Date: 4 March 2026
Case: Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.à.r.l and another v Kingdom of Spain
Neutral citation: [2026] UKSC 9
Docket number: UKSC/2024/0155
Area of law: International arbitration / sovereign immunity
Result: Spain’s appeal dismissed
People Also Ask
What is the ICSID Convention?
The ICSID Convention is an international treaty that establishes a system for resolving disputes between foreign investors and states through arbitration. Awards issued under the Convention are enforceable in all contracting states.
What did the UK Supreme Court decide in Infrastructure Services v Spain?
The Court ruled that Spain could not rely on sovereign immunity to challenge the registration of an ICSID arbitration award in England. The appeal was dismissed and the award remained enforceable.
Why are ICSID arbitration awards important?
ICSID awards allow investors to recover damages when states breach investment treaty obligations. The Convention ensures those awards can be recognised and enforced across member states.
What is sovereign immunity under UK law?
Sovereign immunity is a principle under the State Immunity Act 1978 that generally protects foreign states from being sued in UK courts, subject to certain exceptions.
Why does this ruling matter for international arbitration?
The decision confirms that English courts will recognise and enforce ICSID awards against states that are parties to the Convention, strengthening London’s role in the global arbitration system.
The U.S. Supreme Court has clarified how federal courts must review immigration agency decisions in asylum cases, ruling in Urias-Orellana v. Bondi that appellate courts must apply the substantial-evidence standard when evaluating whether the facts in an asylum claim amount to persecution.
The decision, issued on March 4, 2026, resolves a dispute over how courts should assess determinations made by immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) when reviewing asylum applications under U.S. immigration law.
Background Of The Case
The case arose from the asylum application of Douglas Humberto Urias-Orellana, a citizen of El Salvador who entered the United States with his wife and minor child in June 2021.
Urias-Orellana sought asylum after describing threats and violence linked to a criminal figure in El Salvador. According to the record, two of his half-brothers were shot in separate incidents by an individual connected to a local drug trafficker.
He testified that he feared similar harm would be directed at him and his family.
Following the attacks, the family relocated several times within El Salvador. Urias-Orellana later reported additional threats and an assault before ultimately leaving the country and traveling to the United States.
After arriving in the United States without authorization, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings. Urias-Orellana subsequently applied for asylum and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
Immigration Court Proceedings
An Immigration Judge determined that Urias-Orellana’s testimony was credible but concluded that the incidents described did not rise to the level of “past persecution” required for asylum under U.S. law.
The judge also found that Urias-Orellana had not demonstrated that internal relocation within El Salvador was unreasonable and had not shown that he was likely to face torture if returned to the country.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the decision, agreeing that the threats and assault described did not meet the legal threshold for persecution and that Urias-Orellana had failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution.
First Circuit Review And Supreme Court Decision
Urias-Orellana petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for review of the agency’s decision.
In Urias-Orellana v. Garland, the First Circuit concluded that substantial evidence supported the immigration authorities’ findings.
The court held that the threats and assault described in the record did not compel a finding of persecution and agreed that internal relocation within El Salvador remained possible. The court therefore denied the petition for review.
The U.S. Supreme Court later granted certiorari to resolve a dispute over the standard of judicial review applied when courts assess whether facts found by immigration authorities amount to persecution.
In asylum proceedings, immigration judges act as the primary fact-finders, while federal courts review agency decisions under standards defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The case raised the question of whether determining that certain conduct constitutes persecution should be treated primarily as a legal question or a factual determination entitled to deference.
An amicus brief submitted by former immigration judges argued that determining whether past events qualify as persecution involves applying legal standards to established facts and therefore should receive non-deferential review by appellate courts.
The Supreme Court ultimately held that federal courts reviewing asylum decisions must apply the substantial-evidence standard when assessing whether the facts in the record constitute persecution.
Under that standard, courts must uphold the agency’s decision unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Applying that framework, the Court affirmed the judgment of the First Circuit.
Legal Framework And Significance Of The Decision
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, asylum may be granted to individuals who qualify as refugees. A refugee is defined as a person who is unable or unwilling to return to their home country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.
Applicants may establish eligibility by demonstrating past persecution or by showing a well-founded fear of future persecution.
A finding of past persecution can create a presumption of future persecution, shifting the burden to the government to show that the applicant could safely relocate within the country or that conditions there have materially changed.
The Supreme Court’s ruling clarifies how federal courts should evaluate one of the central determinations in asylum law: whether the experiences described by an applicant legally qualify as persecution.
By confirming that the substantial-evidence standard governs judicial review of this determination, the Court reinforced the significant role immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) play in evaluating asylum claims and limited the circumstances in which federal appellate courts may overturn those findings.
Case Timeline
March 2022 – Immigration Judge denies asylum and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
December 7, 2023 – Board of Immigration Appeals affirms the decision.
November 14, 2024 – First Circuit denies petition for review.
December 1, 2025 – Supreme Court hears oral argument.
March 4, 2026 – Supreme Court issues decision in Urias-Orellana v. Bondi.
Former NFL quarterback Johnny Manziel has obtained an emergency Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in a Texas civil lawsuit alleging harassment and reputational harm. The order temporarily restricts certain conduct while the court reviews the dispute at a scheduled hearing.
The lawsuit, filed in Brazos County, Texas, claims that a woman identified in court filings as MaKenzie Carter repeatedly spread false statements about having a personal relationship with Manziel and contacted individuals connected to his personal and professional life.
According to reporting on the court filings, Manziel alleges the conduct included social media posts and direct communications with friends, family members and business contacts.
His lawsuit seeks damages of $250,000 or less, legal fees and a permanent injunction preventing further conduct described in the complaint.
The key legal development is the court’s decision to grant the emergency restraining order. Under civil injunctive relief standards, Temporary Restraining Orders are designed to prevent potential harm while a court considers whether longer-term restrictions are justified.
The order does not determine whether the allegations are true; instead, it establishes temporary legal boundaries while the dispute proceeds.
What We Know So Far
Court filings reported by media outlets indicate that Manziel filed the civil complaint on 27 February in Brazos County, Texas. The lawsuit alleges that MaKenzie Carter repeatedly made online claims that she was in a personal relationship with him.
The complaint further states that communications were sent to individuals within Manziel’s personal and professional circles asserting the existence of such a relationship and warning others not to interfere.
Manziel claims the alleged conduct caused financial and reputational harm. His lawsuit seeks damages capped at $250,000, along with legal fees and a permanent injunction preventing further communications or claims of the type described in the complaint.
A Texas court granted an emergency Temporary Restraining Order shortly after the lawsuit was filed. A hearing has been scheduled where the court will consider whether longer-term restrictions should remain in place while the civil case proceeds.
At this stage, the court has not made findings regarding the underlying allegations.
How Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs) Work
The key legal development in the case is the court’s issuance of an emergency Temporary Restraining Order.
A TRO is a short-term civil order that courts may grant when a party claims that ongoing conduct is causing harm or poses an immediate risk of harm.
Under civil injunctive relief standards, the purpose of the order is to preserve the status quo until a court can conduct a fuller hearing with both sides present.
Because emergency orders are often issued quickly, courts typically rely on preliminary filings rather than a complete evidentiary record.
For that reason, a TRO is not a determination of liability or a final judgment on the facts.
Instead, the order creates temporary legal restrictions that may limit communication, contact or other specified behaviour. The exact scope depends on the wording of the court order.
Even though a TRO is temporary, it is legally binding. Violating the order may expose a person to contempt of court proceedings, which courts treat as a separate legal matter regardless of how the underlying lawsuit is ultimately resolved.
Key Questions People Are Asking
Does a temporary restraining order mean someone is guilty?
No. A Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) does not mean the court has determined that the allegations are true.
Courts issue TROs as precautionary measures when a party claims ongoing harm that could continue before a full hearing takes place. The order simply imposes temporary restrictions while the court reviews the dispute.
The underlying claims must still be examined through the normal civil litigation process.
What is a temporary restraining order (TRO)?
A temporary restraining order is a short-term court order used to restrict certain conduct while a legal dispute is being reviewed.
Courts may grant TROs in cases involving alleged harassment, threats, reputational harm, or other disputes where a judge believes temporary restrictions may be necessary to prevent potential harm before a full hearing occurs.
What happens after a temporary restraining order is granted?
After a TRO is issued, courts typically schedule a follow-up hearing where both sides can present arguments and evidence.
At that hearing, the judge may decide to keep the order in place, modify its terms, or dissolve it entirely. The broader civil lawsuit can continue regardless of whether the temporary order remains.
How long does a temporary restraining order last?
Temporary restraining orders are designed to last only a short period of time.
In many jurisdictions, a TRO remains in effect until a scheduled court hearing where the judge decides whether longer-term restrictions — such as a preliminary injunction, should be imposed.
Possible Procedural Pathways
At the upcoming hearing, the court will decide whether the temporary restraining order should remain in place while the civil lawsuit proceeds.
In some cases, emergency orders are extended into preliminary injunctions that remain in effect until the dispute is resolved. The court may also modify the scope of the order if it determines narrower restrictions are appropriate.
Alternatively, the judge may dissolve the order if the legal threshold for continued injunctive relief has not been met.
Regardless of what happens with the temporary restraining order, the underlying lawsuit seeking damages and a permanent injunction can continue through the civil litigation process.
What the Restraining Order Means for the Case
The key legal development in the Johnny Manziel case is the court’s issuance of an emergency Temporary Restraining Order, which imposes immediate legal restrictions while the dispute is examined further.
A TRO does not resolve the allegations in the lawsuit. Instead, it serves as a temporary measure designed to preserve the status quo while the court determines whether longer-term injunctive relief may be justified.
As the case proceeds, the court will decide whether the temporary order should remain in place, be modified, or be dissolved.
Regardless of that outcome, the existence of court proceedings and public allegations can carry reputational and professional consequences that extend beyond the courtroom.
Biotechnology company Moderna has agreed to pay up to $2.25 billion to settle patent litigation over technology used in its COVID-19 vaccine, resolving a dispute with Arbutus Biopharma and Genevant Sciences.
The lawsuits alleged that Moderna’s vaccine relied on patented lipid nanoparticle delivery systems, a technology used to transport mRNA molecules into human cells.
Arbutus and Genevant claimed the biotechnology company incorporated elements of their patented technology without appropriate licensing.
The agreement brings an end to several legal claims tied to the intellectual property underlying Moderna’s mRNA vaccine platform.
Background to the Patent Dispute
The litigation focused on patents covering lipid nanoparticle technology, which acts as a delivery vehicle allowing fragile mRNA molecules to enter human cells. The technology is widely regarded as one of the key enabling components behind modern mRNA vaccines.
Arbutus and Genevant claimed that Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine utilised elements of this patented delivery system without authorisation, amounting to patent infringement.
The dispute was formally brought in Arbutus Biopharma Corp. and Genevant Sciences GmbH v. Moderna Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in 2022, after earlier legal challenges surrounding the patents used in mRNA vaccine technology.
Key Court Rulings Before Settlement
In February 2026, U.S. District Judge Joshua D. Wolson, sitting by designation in the Delaware federal court, issued several important summary-judgment rulings as the case moved toward a trial scheduled for March.
One of the most significant decisions rejected Moderna’s attempt to rely on a federal contractor immunity defence under 28 U.S.C. §1498, which can shield companies from patent infringement liability when products are manufactured “for the United States.”
The court held that the statute applied only when patented inventions were used for the benefit of the government itself, not for members of the public receiving vaccines.
As a result, the vast majority of Moderna’s government vaccine sales, reportedly worth more than $8 billion remained subject to the patent claims in the case.
The judge also ruled that Arbutus could not rely on the doctrine of equivalents to prove infringement because amendments made during the patent prosecution process created prosecution history estoppel.
Instead, the company would need to demonstrate literal infringement of the patents at trial.
Settlement Structure
Under the agreement, Moderna will make an initial payment of approximately $950 million.
The settlement also includes provisions for additional payments that could bring the total value to as much as $2.25 billion, depending on the outcome of related legal proceedings connected to the patents.
The agreement resolves existing litigation while establishing licensing arrangements tied to the disputed technology.
For Moderna, the settlement removes a major legal uncertainty surrounding the intellectual property framework underpinning its COVID-19 vaccine and broader mRNA platform.
Legal Implications for Biotechnology Companies
The case highlights the increasing importance of intellectual property rights in emerging biotechnology fields, particularly those involving platform technologies such as mRNA therapeutics.
Unlike traditional pharmaceutical patents focused on a single compound, biotechnology innovation frequently involves multiple layers of intellectual property, including delivery systems, manufacturing techniques and therapeutic applications.
This creates a complex legal landscape in which companies must navigate licensing agreements, patent portfolios and potential infringement claims while bringing new products to market.
For corporate legal teams, the dispute illustrates the importance of freedom-to-operate assessments, early licensing negotiations and robust patent strategies when developing high-value medical technologies.
Broader Impact for mRNA Patent Litigation
The settlement comes as pharmaceutical companies continue expanding the use of mRNA technology beyond COVID-19 vaccines into areas such as cancer immunotherapy and treatments for rare diseases.
As investment in mRNA platforms grows, intellectual property rights covering delivery systems, manufacturing processes and formulation techniques are becoming increasingly important for biotechnology companies.
The dispute highlights how patent protection over enabling technologies such as lipid nanoparticle delivery systems can shape competition and licensing arrangements across the rapidly developing mRNA therapeutics sector.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the New Jersey Transit Corporation is not entitled to interstate sovereign immunity, allowing negligence lawsuits against the transit operator to proceed in other states’ courts.
In Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corporation, the Court held that the state-created transit authority does not qualify as an arm of the State of New Jersey for purposes of constitutional sovereign immunity.
The ruling resolves conflicting decisions from the highest courts of Pennsylvania and New York and clarifies how courts determine whether state-created corporations share in a state’s immunity from suit under the Federal Constitution.
The Dispute in Brief
The litigation arose from a negligence lawsuit brought by Cedric Galette following a vehicle collision involving a New Jersey Transit bus.
According to the petition filed with the Supreme Court, Galette alleged that on August 9, 2018, he was a passenger in a vehicle stopped on Market Street in Philadelphia when a New Jersey Transit bus struck the car, causing injuries.
Galette sued both New Jersey Transit and the driver of the vehicle, alleging that their separate acts of negligence caused the accident.
New Jersey Transit moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that it is an arm of the State of New Jersey and therefore entitled to interstate sovereign immunity when sued in the courts of another state.
Lower courts in Pennsylvania initially allowed the lawsuit to proceed. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court later reversed those rulings, concluding that the transit authority qualified as an arm of the state and therefore enjoyed sovereign immunity from the suit.
The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court after conflicting rulings from the highest courts of Pennsylvania and New York on the same constitutional question.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court held that New Jersey Transit does not qualify as an arm of the State of New Jersey for purposes of interstate sovereign immunity.
As a result, the Court affirmed the judgment of the New York Court of Appeals, which had allowed a lawsuit against the transit authority to proceed, and reversed the judgment of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which had dismissed Galette’s lawsuit.
Both cases were remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s ruling.
In reaching that conclusion, the Court explained that sovereign immunity belongs to the state itself and extends only to entities that function as an “arm of the State.”
Determining whether an entity qualifies requires examining how the state structured the organisation under its laws, including its legal status, operational autonomy, and financial relationship with the state.
Under New Jersey law, the New Jersey Transit Corporation was created as a separate corporate entity with powers typical of an independent public corporation, including the authority to sue and be sued, enter contracts, acquire property, and manage its own affairs.
The Court also emphasised that New Jersey law specifies that the corporation’s debts and liabilities are not obligations of the state treasury.
Because a judgment against New Jersey Transit would not be paid by the State of New Jersey itself, the Court concluded that this factor strongly weighs against treating the transit authority as part of the state.
Although New Jersey exercises oversight over the organisation, including appointing board members and retaining certain supervisory powers — the Court said such control does not change the corporation’s legally independent status.
Taken together, the Court concluded that New Jersey structured the transit authority as a separate corporation responsible for its own liabilities rather than as an alter ego of the state government.
Key Legal Takeaways
The decision clarifies that state-created corporations will not automatically qualify as an “arm of the State” for purposes of interstate sovereign immunity.
In determining whether an entity shares a state’s constitutional immunity, courts will examine how the entity is structured under state law, including its legal status, operational autonomy and financial relationship with the state.
The Court placed particular emphasis on whether the state treasury would be responsible for judgments against the entity.
The ruling may affect litigation involving other state-created authorities and public corporations operating across state lines.
What Happens Next
The Supreme Court remanded the cases for further proceedings.
As a result, the negligence claims brought by the plaintiffs may now proceed in the courts where they were originally filed.
Case details
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Date: March 4, 2026
Case: Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corporation
Docket number: 24-1021
Area of law: Constitutional law / sovereign immunity
Result: Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed; New York Court of Appeals affirmed; cases remanded
Allegations that U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales exchanged sexually suggestive messages with a former congressional aide have emerged as a defining issue in a closely watched Texas Republican primary runoff, while also raising broader legal questions about workplace relationships and power dynamics between senior officials and staff.
The controversy emerged during the 2026 Republican primary for Texas’s 23rd congressional district, where Gonzales failed to secure the majority needed to win outright and will now face challenger Brandon Herrera in a runoff election scheduled for May 26.
The race was overshadowed in its final weeks by reports alleging Gonzales exchanged personal messages with a former staff member, Regina Santos‑Aviles, who later died in 2025 after setting herself on fire. Gonzales has denied wrongdoing and has said the information released publicly does not represent the full context of the situation.
Allegations and Political Fallout
Allegations about a relationship between Gonzales and Santos-Aviles had circulated for months but gained renewed attention in February 2026 as reported messages between the two became public.
Text messages cited in reports allegedly showed Gonzales asking Santos-Aviles for personal photographs and making sexually suggestive remarks. In one exchange, Santos-Aviles responded that the messages were “going too far.”
Santos-Aviles died more than a year after the reported exchanges. Police records indicate she set herself on fire at her home. Authorities have not linked her death to the alleged communications.
The controversy prompted calls from several Republican lawmakers for Gonzales to resign. Gonzales rejected those calls, telling CNN in February that the information released publicly does not represent the full context and stating he would not step down from office.
Gonzales has also denied the allegations and claimed he is the target of an extortion attempt. He posted part of a letter from the widower’s attorney referencing a potential settlement with a nondisclosure agreement, which the attorney said was a standard legal settlement proposal rather than blackmail.
Despite the controversy, House Republican leadership has not withdrawn its support and has largely left the outcome to voters.
Workplace Conduct and Power Dynamics
The allegations have drawn attention to a common legal and compliance issue: relationships between supervisors and subordinates in professional environments.
Employment lawyers frequently highlight the risks associated with workplace relationships involving a power imbalance. When a senior official communicates with a subordinate in a personal or sexualised manner, it can raise questions about consent, pressure, or potential misuse of authority.
Many organisations, including government bodies, corporations, and law firms maintain strict policies requiring disclosure of workplace relationships or prohibiting relationships between managers and direct reports altogether.
These policies are designed to mitigate risks such as:
-
sexual harassment claims
-
allegations of coercion or retaliation
-
hostile work environment complaints
-
conflicts of interest affecting workplace decisions
Even when a relationship is consensual, the presence of a supervisory hierarchy can create legal exposure if a subordinate later alleges pressure or unfair treatment.
Congressional Ethics Rules and Staff Conduct Standards
Members of Congress are subject to ethical rules governing their conduct toward congressional staff, including obligations to maintain a professional workplace and comply with federal protections against harassment and discrimination.
While congressional rules do not explicitly prohibit all relationships between lawmakers and employees, they do prohibit sexual harassment and require members to maintain professional boundaries with staff.
Allegations involving workplace behaviour may be reviewed through internal processes within the House of Representatives, including oversight by the United States House Committee on Ethics or through mechanisms administered by the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights.
Legal analysts often note that conduct within congressional offices is subject not only to internal ethics oversight but also to broader federal workplace protections that apply to employees working within the legislative branch.
Political Fallout in the Texas Primary Race
The controversy emerged during a closely watched Republican primary contest in Texas’s 23rd congressional district, where Gonzales ultimately failed to secure the majority required to avoid a runoff election.
Gonzales, who has represented the border district since 2021, has faced criticism from both conservative and moderate factions during his tenure.
In 2023, the Texas Republican Party formally censured him after he supported bipartisan gun safety legislation passed following the 2022 school shooting in Uvalde.
His challenger, Brandon Herrera, a firearms entrepreneur and online commentator known as “The AK Guy,” has used his large social media following to build a competitive campaign and raise significant funding.
Neither candidate secured more than 50 percent of the vote in the primary, forcing a runoff election scheduled for May.
Workplace Relationships and Governance Risk
Beyond its political implications, the situation highlights governance and workplace conduct issues that extend far beyond government offices.
Employment lawyers often note that workplace relationships involving supervisors and subordinates can create legal and compliance risks because of the inherent power imbalance.
For this reason, many organisations require disclosure of such relationships, restrict relationships involving direct reporting lines, or prohibit them entirely.
Corporate leaders, compliance officers and legal teams often view cases like this as a reminder that workplace conduct policies are designed not only to protect employees but also to reduce potential legal liability and reputational risk.
Even allegations alone, particularly when they involve authority figures and junior staff, can lead to internal investigations, governance reviews and intense public attention.
On March 3, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (Docket No. 23‑2946).
The case addressed whether the EPA’s 2016 nationwide cadmium recommendations under Clean Water Act § 304(a) constituted “agency action” that would trigger consultation requirements under Endangered Species Act § 7.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), holding that the EPA was required to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service before issuing its 2016 cadmium recommendations.
Judge Miller dissented, arguing that CBD lacked standing because any alleged injury was not sufficiently traceable to EPA guidance.
Case Background
The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), a non-profit environmental organization, sued the EPA and Administrator Michael S. Regan, alleging that the agency violated ESA § 7 by failing to consult with the Services before issuing its 2016 § 304(a) recommendations for cadmium.
The 2016 guidance revised water quality criteria for cadmium, including a less stringent chronic freshwater standard.
CBD argued that the lack of consultation threatened endangered species and harmed its members, who engage in recreational, educational, and scientific activities involving affected aquatic species.
The district court granted summary judgment to CBD, vacating the chronic freshwater recommendation and remanding all § 304(a) cadmium criteria for consultation. EPA appealed, challenging CBD’s standing and whether the guidance constituted “agency action.”
Court Ruling and Reasoning
The Ninth Circuit concluded that CBD had Article III standing and that EPA’s § 304(a) recommendations were agency action that may affect endangered species, triggering ESA § 7 consultation requirements.
In reaching this decision, the court noted:
-
Injury in fact: CBD members routinely use waters with listed species potentially affected by cadmium, and less stringent water quality criteria could harm these species.
-
Traceability: Historical practice shows that many States adopt EPA § 304(a) recommendations, making it reasonably predictable that EPA guidance influences water quality standards.
-
Redressability: Consultation is likely to result in stricter cadmium recommendations, which at least some States would adopt, thereby protecting CBD members’ interests in endangered species.
The court emphasized that § 304(a) recommendations are not merely advisory; they are a statutorily mandated mechanism that guides State adoption of water quality standards.
While the guidance itself is nonbinding, its widespread influence over State decisions satisfies ESA § 7’s requirements.
Judge Miller dissented, arguing that CBD could not demonstrate traceability because States retain discretion to adopt or reject EPA guidance, and therefore any injury was not directly caused by EPA action.
Key Takeaways For Business
-
EPA Guidance Is Agency Action: Even nonbinding § 304(a) recommendations may trigger procedural obligations under the ESA if they affect endangered species.
-
Procedural Compliance Matters: Federal agencies must engage in § 7 consultation before promulgating guidance that may influence State water quality standards.
-
Predictability of Adoption: Businesses should understand that widespread adoption of EPA recommendations can create legally significant consequences.
-
Environmental NGO Strategy: Challenging federal guidance that may affect species can be a valid legal avenue; consultation processes are critical.
-
Risk Monitoring: Corporate counsel should account for ESA consultation obligations when assessing regulatory and environmental compliance risk.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed CBD’s victory, confirming that EPA must consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service under ESA § 7 before issuing or reinstating its 2016 cadmium § 304(a) recommendations.
In the meantime, the 2016 chronic freshwater recommendation remains vacated, and the agency must revisit all cadmium guidance through the lens of ESA consultation.
Case Details
Court: U.S. Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit
Date: March 3, 2026
Case Name: Center For Biological Diversity v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Number: 23‑2946
Area Of Law: Other Commercial Litigation (Environmental / Regulatory)
Result: Affirmed District Court; EPA Required To Consult Under ESA § 7
People Also Ask
Why did the Ninth Circuit affirm the district court in CBD v. EPA?
The court found that CBD had standing and that EPA’s 2016 cadmium guidance qualified as agency action that may affect endangered species, requiring consultation under ESA § 7.
What is the legal significance of “agency action” in this case?
“Agency action” under ESA § 7 includes federal actions that may affect listed species. The court held that EPA’s § 304(a) guidance meets this standard because it influences State water quality standards.
Did the EPA violate the Endangered Species Act?
Yes. By issuing the 2016 cadmium guidance without consulting the Services, EPA failed to comply with ESA § 7.
How does standing relate to third-party State decisions?
CBD demonstrated that adoption of EPA guidance by States is reasonably predictable, creating a direct link between EPA action and potential injury, satisfying standing requirements.
Are nonbinding EPA recommendations enforceable?
While not directly enforceable, § 304(a) recommendations have a predictable impact on State water quality standards, making them actionable for ESA consultation purposes.
A civil lawsuit filed against filmmaker Tyler Perry alleging sexual assault highlights a broader legal question many people misunderstand: what must actually be proven in a civil sexual assault claim.
Unlike criminal prosecutions, civil lawsuits operate under a different legal standard and focus on whether the alleged conduct was harmful and non‑consensual under state tort law.
Understanding Civil Sexual Assault Claims in California
A newly filed lawsuit filed by actor Mario Rodriguez against filmmaker Tyler Perry has drawn attention not merely for its high-profile nature but for the legal questions it raises about civil sexual assault litigation.
The plaintiff’s complaint alleges sexual misconduct and seeks substantial monetary damages. Perry’s legal team has denied the claims and argued that the lawsuit does not state legally valid causes of action.
This dispute provides an opportunity to explain an important aspect of U.S. civil law: in a civil sexual assault or sexual battery claim, success depends on proving specific elements under applicable state civil codes, elements that differ significantly from criminal standards.
In California, civil sexual battery claims are governed by Civil Code § 1708.5, which defines what a plaintiff must prove and the types of damages available.
Understanding these statutory requirements helps readers see what a civil judge or jury must actually assess, regardless of the specific parties involved.
The Case and Legal Framework
Public reporting indicates that a lawsuit filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court alleges that the defendant made unwanted sexual advances and contact during interactions connected with potential work opportunities.
At this stage, the complaint represents allegations that must still be tested through the civil process. The defendant has denied the claims and asserted various legal defenses, including that the complaint fails to state valid legal causes of action and that any alleged contact was consensual. No court has yet adjudicated the merits of the allegations.
A civil sexual assault (or “sexual battery”) lawsuit is a civil cause of action, typically rooted in state tort law rather than criminal law, where the plaintiff seeks financial compensation for alleged harm rather than criminal punishment.
In California, civil sexual battery claims are codified under Civil Code § 1708.5, which requires a plaintiff to prove that the defendant:
-
Intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact with an intimate part of the plaintiff, and
-
That a sexually offensive contact occurred directly or indirectly as a result of the defendant’s actions.
The statute defines what constitutes harmful or offensive contact and provides that a person who commits such an act is liable for damages, including general, special, and punitive damages, and that courts may award equitable relief where appropriate.
This framework gives courts a clear set of elements to assess in civil litigation, distinct from criminal definitions.
Key Questions People Are Asking
What must a plaintiff prove in a California civil sexual battery claim?
Under Civil Code §1708.5, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant intended to cause harmful or offensive contact with an intimate part, that a sexually offensive contact occurred, and that the plaintiff did not consent. Consent must be actual and unconditional, and any limits on consent may affect liability.
How does a civil sexual assault claim differ from a criminal case?
Civil claims are filed by private individuals seeking damages, with a lower burden of proof (“preponderance of the evidence”) than criminal cases, which are prosecuted by the government and require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil liability can be established even if criminal charges are not filed or do not result in conviction.
What damages can a plaintiff recover in a civil sexual assault lawsuit?
- General damages (pain and suffering)
- Special damages (economic losses)
- Punitive damages
- Equitable relief (e.g., injunctions or costs)
The amount awarded depends on the evidence of harm and applicable statutory standards.
Implications and Procedural Pathways
Understanding the statutory requirements of a civil sexual battery claim helps demystify how civil litigation works.
For plaintiffs, knowing the elements of the claim — intent, offensive contact, and lack of consent clarifies what the law requires and why not all allegations automatically establish liability.
For defendants, these elements highlight the types of defenses available, including consent or lack of evidence demonstrating harmful contact.
Civil litigation focuses on liability and damages under clearly defined legal standards. Misconceptions about civil claims can be addressed by understanding these statutory benchmarks, which guide how courts evaluate allegations and determine whether claims are legally sufficient.
At each stage of litigation, courts apply these statutory elements, as outlined in Civil Code § 1708.5, to assess the case. The typical procedural pathway includes:
-
Pleadings: The complaint must clearly state the causes of action.
-
Motions: Defendants may challenge the sufficiency of the complaint or raise jurisdictional issues.
-
Discovery: Both parties exchange evidence and testimony to support or defend claims.
-
Trial or Settlement: Cases may resolve through negotiated settlement or proceed to a jury or bench trial.
This framework ensures that civil sexual battery claims are evaluated systematically, with each procedural step designed to test whether the legal elements have been met and to provide remedies where appropriate.
Legal Conclusion
Civil sexual assault and battery claims are resolved by assessing whether the statutory elements under relevant state law have been satisfied.
In California, Civil Code § 1708.5 establishes the requirements for proving a sexual battery claim, including intent to cause harmful or offensive contact and the occurrence of non-consensual sexual contact.
These statutory benchmarks guide courts in evaluating evidence and determining liability, clearly distinguishing civil liability from criminal prosecution.
A firm understanding of this framework provides readers with enduring legal insight into how civil sexual battery claims operate and what plaintiffs must demonstrate to prevail, independent of the specific high-profile context that brought the topic into public attention.
A Japanese national has been sentenced to 20 years in prison after pleading guilty to participating in a cross-border conspiracy involving nuclear materials trafficking, narcotics distribution, weapons procurement and money laundering.
The U.S. Department of Justice said Takeshi Ebisawa was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon in the Southern District of New York after admitting to six criminal counts.
Prosecutors said the case stemmed from a multi-year undercover investigation targeting an international network involved in transactions involving narcotics, weapons and nuclear materials.
The Investigation
According to the Justice Department, the investigation examined activity between approximately 2019 and Ebisawa’s arrest on April 4, 2022, involving an international network of associates operating across Japan, Thailand, Burma (Myanmar), Sri Lanka and the United States, among other locations.
During the investigation, a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) undercover agent posed as a narcotics and weapons trafficker. Ebisawa introduced the agent to members of the network in order to arrange potential criminal transactions.
Authorities said Ebisawa and his associates negotiated four separate sets of transactions with the undercover operative during the investigation.
In one proposed deal, Ebisawa attempted to broker the sale of nuclear materials, initially offering uranium and later proposing plutonium, which he described as more powerful.
The materials were intended for a buyer he believed to be an Iranian general connected to a nuclear weapons programme. In exchange, Ebisawa sought military-grade weapons, including surface-to-air missiles, for an ethnic insurgent group in Burma.
In February 2022, Ebisawa and two co-conspirators met with the undercover operative in Thailand, where one associate displayed samples of the nuclear material.
Thai authorities seized the samples and transferred them to U.S. law enforcement. A U.S. nuclear forensic laboratory later determined the materials contained detectable quantities of uranium, thorium and weapons-grade plutonium, according to the Justice Department.
The investigation also uncovered planned narcotics transactions. In one arrangement, Ebisawa sought to broker the sale of methamphetamine and heroin to the undercover operative in exchange for heavy weapons that were described as originating from U.S. military bases in Afghanistan, the DOJ said.
In a separate negotiation, Ebisawa and associates discussed the sale of approximately 500 kilograms of methamphetamine and 500 kilograms of heroin intended for distribution in the New York market.
During 2021, associates provided narcotics samples to the undercover operative in Thailand.
Authorities also identified a money laundering transaction involving $100,000, which the undercover agent represented as narcotics proceeds.
The funds were transferred to U.S. bank accounts controlled by one of Ebisawa’s associates, after which Ebisawa delivered the equivalent of approximately $85,000 in cash in Tokyo, retaining a commission.
The Prosecution
U.S. authorities said the case resulted from a multi-year investigation involving several domestic and international law enforcement agencies.
The Drug Enforcement Administration led the investigation, with assistance from IRS Criminal Investigation and multiple DEA offices operating internationally.
The Justice Department said law enforcement partners in Denmark, Indonesia, Japan and Thailand also supported the investigation.
Prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York handled the case with assistance from the National Security Division’s Counterterrorism Section.
Legal Exposure And Penalties
Ebisawa pleaded guilty to six criminal counts related to trafficking nuclear materials, narcotics and weapons, as well as participating in a money laundering transaction.
U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon sentenced him to 20 years’ imprisonment. The court also imposed five years of supervised release.
The Justice Department announcement does not specify the statutory maximum penalties associated with the charges.
Cross-Border Investigation and Enforcement Cooperation
The prosecution reflects a multi-year investigation involving several U.S. agencies and international law enforcement partners.
According to the Justice Department, authorities worked across multiple jurisdictions to investigate transactions involving narcotics, weapons and nuclear materials negotiated through intermediaries operating in different countries.
The case relied heavily on an undercover DEA operation, along with cooperation from authorities in Denmark, Indonesia, Japan and Thailand.
Investigators also used forensic analysis of seized material samples and traced financial transfers routed through U.S. bank accounts as part of the investigation.
The Justice Department said the investigation involved coordination between the DEA’s Special Operations Division, multiple DEA international offices and prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, with support from the National Security Division’s Counterterrorism Section.
The DOJ announcement does not indicate whether the prosecution forms part of a broader enforcement initiative.
Following sentencing, Ebisawa will serve the prison term imposed by the court followed by a five-year period of supervised release.
Case Details
Court: U.S. District Court
District: Southern District of New York
Case posture: Defendant sentenced following guilty plea
Lead investigative agencies: Drug Enforcement Administration; IRS Criminal Investigation
DOJ components: U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York; National Security Division Counterterrorism Section; Office of International Affairs
Date of announcement: 3 March 2026
