Federal lawsuit filed by former convention bureau chief dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
U.S. District Judge Damon Leichty, who took over the case from retired Judge Joe Van Bokkelen earlier this year, wrote in a July 31 order that once Van Bokkelen severed the city, Mayor Tom McDermott Jr. and his 'Left of Center' podcast from the suit Speros Batistatos filed against the SSCVA in February, the federal question no longer applies. As such, 'The court must dismiss an action 'at any time' it determines it lacks subject matter jurisdiction,' he wrote.
'When the action contains no claims over which the court has federal question jurisdiction, there is nothing to which supplemental jurisdiction can attach,' despite it having been attached to the original case that does have a federal question, Leichty wrote in the five-page order.
'(S)upplemental jurisdiction may only be invoked when the district court has a hook of original jurisdiction on which to hang it.'
Because the case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, Batistatos can refile it at the state level, the order reads. As to whether he will, Batistatos deferred comment to his attorney, Sandra Blevins of Indianapolis; Blevins didn't respond to a request for comment by deadline.
McDermott, however, on Wednesday encouraged Batistatos to file the suit at the state level because he believes the state court will be more sympathetic to his First Amendment rights.
'All along, we didn't think our part of the suit would go anywhere, but we still filed an anti-SLAPP suit against him,' McDermott said. 'I don't think Speros would be dumb enough to refile, but if he does, the state court is much friendlier to defendants, and we'll simply refile the anti-SLAPP.
'The fact that this took so long is frustrating, but justice does prevail.'
Anti-SLAPP laws 'prevent people from using courts, and potential threats of a lawsuit, to intimidate people who are exercising their First Amendment rights,' according to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press's website.
Batistatos sued the SSCVA in August 2022 – a month after it fired him — alleging it violated the law in the handling of his contract renegotiations due to his age — 58 at the time — as well as misspent federal Payroll Protection Plan funds in violation of the CARES Act, a claim the board disputes, the Post-Tribune previously reported.
His suit named the SSCVA as well as CVA Board President Andy Qunell and board members Matt Schuffert, Hard Rock Casino general manager; local restaurateur Brent Brashier; Tom Dabertin; and local real estate agent Matt Maloney.
Notices of intent to sue were also sent to McDermott and attorney Kevin Smith for $2.5 million for defamation for their actions around the time Batistatos was relieved of his duties by the board.
In the notice sent to McDermott, Batistatos alleged McDermott conspired and made a backdoor deal with the SSCVA board to dismiss a pending lawsuit against the SSCVA if Payroll Protection Plan funds were given out to aid his and other municipalities. He also said McDermott 'stated he would dismiss the lawsuit if Mr. Batistatos were terminated from his position at the SSCVA,' as well as making other 'numerous defamatory statements' against Batistatos on McDermott's podcast with Kevin Smith entitled Left of Center Podcast, according to the document.
In August 2023, Van Bokkelen dismissed claims against Smith and Left of Center Media, LLC, which produces McDermott's podcast, as well as axed Batistatos's claim of 'tortious interference' with 'contractual and business relationships' against McDermott and the city of Hammond. But on June 18, Van Bokkelen filed three motions: one denying the dismissal of Batistatos's lawsuit and one removing Thomas McDermott in his official capacity as mayor from it, although McDermott as himself and the city of Hammond would remain on the suit, the Post-Tribune previously reported.
The third motion allowed Batistatos to refile his suit against McDermott's Left of Center Media LLC and Left of Center podcast, court documents said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
5 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Stanford Daily sues Trump administration, citing threats to free speech
Stanford University's student newspaper is suing the Trump administration, claiming the threat to deport foreign students for speaking out against Israel's handling of the war in Gaza is chilling free speech. That threat is hampering the paper's ability to cover campus demonstrations and to get protesters to speak on the record, according to a lawsuit filed on Wednesday in the U.S. District Court in Northern California. Some Stanford Daily writers, who are foreigners in the country on student visas, have even turned down assignments to write about unrest in the Middle East because they're afraid they'll be deported. Writers have also asked the paper to remove previously published stories from its website, citing the same concerns, the lawsuit claims. 'In the United States of America, no one should fear a midnight knock on the door for voicing the wrong opinion,' the newspaper's lawyers wrote in their complaint. The suit accuses Trump administration officials, specifically Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Homeland Security Secretary Kristin Noem, of placing their statutory authority to deport a foreign visa holder whose beliefs they deem un-American ahead of the constitutional right — guaranteed by the First Amendment— to free speech. 'When a federal statute collides with First Amendment rights,' the newspaper's lawyers wrote, 'the Constitution prevails.' Tricia McLaughlin, spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, scoffed at the lawsuit, calling it, 'baseless.' 'There is no room in the United States for the rest of the world's terrorist sympathizers, and we are under no obligation to admit them or let them stay here,' she said in a statement. The lawsuit — which was filed by the 133-year old student newspaper, not by the university itself — is the most recent salvo in an increasingly bitter fight between Trump and many of the nation's elite universities. The president has made clear he sees top schools as hotbeds of liberal ideology and breeding grounds for anti-American sentiment. His weapon of choice is to threaten to withhold billions of dollars in federal research grants from institutions that refuse to adopt policies on issues like diversity, transgender rights and Israel that fall in line with his Make America Great Again ideology. Critics call Trump's campaign an attack on academic freedom, but fearing massive budget cuts, several Ivy League schools – including the University of Pennsylvania, Columbia and Brown – have recently cut deals with the Trump administration in an attempt to limit the damage. Stanford announced this week that it will be forced to lay off hundreds of employees as a result of cuts to research funding and changes to federal tax laws. The Stanford Daily's lawsuit focuses on two unnamed students, John and Jane Doe, who the paper's lawyers say began self-censoring out of a well-founded fear of having their visas revoked and being deported. Rubio has claimed that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 allows the secretary of state to revoke a noncitizen's legal status if it is decided the person's actions or statements 'compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.' Rubio used that interpretation to justify the March arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, a legal U.S. resident and pro-Palestinian activist at Columbia University who was held in a Louisiana jail before a federal judge ordered his release. The complaint cites the cases of two other foreign students — one at Columbia and one at Tufts — who were arrested for participating in pro-Palestinian campus demonstrations. At Stanford, the plaintiff referred to as Jane Doe, was a member of the group Students for Justice in Palestine. She has published online commentary accusing Israel of committing genocide and perpetuating apartheid, according to the lawsuit. She has also used the slogan, 'from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free', which has become a flashpoint in the Israel-Gaza debate. Referencing the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea — which includes Israel, The West Bank and the Gaza Strip — the slogan is viewed as a call for freedom and self-determination by Palestinians. To many Israelis, it sounds like a call for their total destruction. As a result, Doe's profile appeared on the Canary Mission, a pro-Israel website that creators say is devoted to outing 'hatred of the USA, Israel and Jews.' Department of Homeland Security officials have acknowledged they consult the website's profiles — most of which are of students and faculty at elite universities — for information on people worthy of investigation. As a result, since March, Jane Doe has deleted her social media accounts and has 'refrained from publishing and voicing her true opinions regarding Palestine and Israel,' the lawsuit claims. John Doe has participated in pro-Palestine demonstrations, has accused Israel of genocide and chanted, 'from the river to the sea'. But after the Trump administration started targeting campus demonstrators for deportation, he 'refrained from publishing a study containing criticism of Israel's actions in Gaza,' according to the lawsuit. Unlike Jane Doe, John has since resumed public criticism of Israel, despite the threat of deportation, according to the lawsuit.
7 hours ago
Fox News moves to dismiss Gavin Newsom's defamation lawsuit
Fox News has moved to dismiss California Gov. Gavin Newsom's $787 million defamation lawsuit against the network and collect attorney fees, calling the suit a "political stunt" that Newsom filed "to advance his presidential ambitions." "The tone and content of Newsom's complaint and his conduct underscore that the purpose of this lawsuit is to create a press spectacle and harass Fox News, not to remedy any legitimate reputational harm," the 45-page filing from Fox states. Newsom's lawsuit stemmed from the channel's coverage of a spat that occurred between Newsome and President Donald Trump during the L.A. wildfires. Trump claimed at the time that he had spoken to Newsom "a day ago" to tell Newsome he was doing a "bad job," but Newsom replied on social media that "there was no call" -- prompting Trump to give Fox News a screen shot showing the record of a call that had occurred days earlier. Fox News host Jesse Watters, that night on his show, accused Newsom of lying, saying, "Why would Newsom lie and claim that Trump never called him?" Newsom's attorneys, in a letter to Fox News, said they would proceed with the suit unless Fox News issued a retraction and an on-air apology. In their court filing, Fox News said that Watters did that on July 17 when he said on the air that Newsome "didn't deceive anybody on purpose. So I'm sorry, he wasn't lying. He was just confusing and unclear." As a result, Fox News says the case should be dismissed on multiple grounds -- including on the merits -- writing that what Watters said was "substantially true." "At a minimum, Watters' query about why Newsom would 'lie' is an opinion based on disclosed facts that enjoys full First Amendment protection," the filing states. Newsom's $787 million suit seeks the same amount as the 2023 settlement Fox reached with Dominion Voting Systems after the voting machine company accused Fox News of knowingly pushing false conspiracy theories that Dominion rigged the 2020 presidential election in Joe Biden's favor. In its filing in the Newsome case, Fox News called Newsome's use of that figure a "headline-grabbing gimmick."
Politico
7 hours ago
- Politico
A California judge opens the door to election deepfakes
American elections are increasingly clouded with anxiety over what AI-powered misinformation could be doing to democracy — misleading voters, smearing candidates, polluting the media ecosystem. Despite Congress' inaction on the issue — or maybe because of it — more than half of the U.S.' state legislatures have either considered or passed laws on election deepfakes, making states the main guardians of what Americans can and can't circulate about elections. A federal court, however, struck down one of the country's strictest state laws on AI election misinformation on Tuesday — raising the question of how, or whether, regulators should address deepfakes that could skew the vote. The law, signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom last year, prohibits platforms from displaying election-related deepfakes within about four months of voting day in California. (States like Texas have similar laws, though they're mostly aimed at the campaigns themselves.) The challenge had its roots in a clash of egos. When X owner Elon Musk shared a distorted clip of then-Vice President Kamala Harris on the site, Newsom rebuked him. A few months later, Newsom signed the law, and the video's creator promptly filed a suit against California to get the deepfake rule overturned. Musk's X later joined the suit, along with Rumble and the Babylon Bee. On Tuesday, California District Judge John Mendez overturned the law — not on First Amendment grounds, but because it violated Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, which protects platforms from liability for content that third parties post. He ruled that when a user uploaded the deepfake clip of Harris saying she was the 'ultimate diversity hire,' platforms didn't have a duty to block it. 'This is not surprising in the least,' Ari Cohn, lead tech counsel for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said of the decision. 'It's kind of bizarre to me that [California] thought they could sneak this by Section 230 in the first place.' The full transcript of Medez's ruling likely won't be available until a month from now. But when he delivered his opinion from the bench, Mendez didn't invoke the First Amendment arguments that the attorneys raised about the law. (My colleague Chase DiFeliciantonio, the POLITICO reporter in the courtroom, told DFD that neither the websites nor the state pressed the issue further when Mendez asked.) You might see why the ruling makes sense from a tech policy perspective — regardless of how much it might horrify election-reform advocates. Section 230 is widely regarded as the '26 words that created the internet.' Written to protect service providers like America Online from being sued for the content their users were posting, it has evolved into the primary liability shield for massive online platforms like X, Facebook, YouTube and Reddit, which would likely be sued into oblivion if they could be liable for every single post. Without it, they might pre-emptively take down everything that has even a remote chance of being illegal, making feeds boringly vanilla. Section 230 also shields platforms when removing content they deem to be objectionable, which is essential for moderation. At the same time, Section 230 has become a political punching bag. Some advocates say it has hugely exceeded its original intent, and now protects companies from harms they knowingly allow to fester. The debate is especially sharp around elections, and not just from Democrats worried about Musk's provocations. During the 2020 presidential race, conservatives were up in arms when Facebook and Twitter (now X) suppressed posts about explicit videos on Hunter Biden's misplaced laptop — the kind of content policy protected by Section 230. Now with the rise of deepfakes, that argument has broadened — and critics suggest that the law allows for a genuine degradation of democracy. Section 230 isn't ironclad. The law doesn't absolutely shield platforms that host child sexual abuse material or copyright-infringing works, or that facilitate sex trafficking. First lady Melania Trump recently pushed through the Take It Down Act, a law signed in May that imposes criminal liability on platforms that display sexual deepfakes and revenge porn. (Section 230 technically doesn't apply to criminal laws.) So why shouldn't there be an exception for election deepfakes, too? For one, the country has a long tradition of trying to promote, and protect, robust political discourse. Pornography, by contrast, has generally been considered as less worthy of protection. 'Congress' judgment is if the consequences are that platforms will over-restrict porn in some measure, no big deal,' UCLA Law professor Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment specialist, told DFD. Whereas when it comes to political speech, even AI-generated, he says: 'We might be worried about the over-chilling of, say, election-related parody.' There's even a counterintuitive argument that such an exception could actually make misinformation worse. Cohn points out that without Section 230, a politician could file a bunch of lawsuits against platforms with frivolous claims that an unflattering video — even a perfectly real one — was a deepfake. In response to a 2024 election ad that compiled clips of then-candidate Donald Trump's real-life gaffes, he falsely asserted that they had been fabricated using AI. There may be ways to construct a narrower law than California's that would pass muster. A law that restricts election deepfakes a week, rather than four months, before the vote may be more legally defensible, according to Cohn. Courts have also left open the possibility that restrictions on misinformation about election mechanics — such as misleading people about how to vote — could be permissible. If there were a deepfake video of Biden telling people to visit the polls on the wrong day, served up to likely Democratic voters, a law could conceivably be narrow enough to address that kind of attempt to disrupt the system. For legislators looking to solve the deepfake problem, there's one other nettlesome fact: Despite all the anxiety, there isn't much evidence that election deepfakes in fact skewed the 2024 vote. Without having a documented harm, it's tough to know how to create a focused, defensible law to regulate it. Cohn said, 'The price of living in a free society is that bad things are sometimes going to happen before we can fix them.' AWS gives the administration a $1 billion coupon Amazon Web Services is effectively chipping in $1 billion to advance Trump's AI agenda, POLITICO's Sophia Cai reports. The General Services Administration announced on Thursday that it had struck an agreement with AWS to help move federal agencies onto the cloud. The deal, which is set to run through 2028, provides for $1 billion in credits for AWS' services. More access to cloud computing will help agencies to integrate large language models and other deep learning applications into its operations. The coupon is part of DOGE's OneGov initiative, which seeks to digitize the federal government's paper-based systems. Oracle also agreed to give agencies a 75 percent discount on its cloud and database services in July, and a senior administration official told POLITICO that similar OneGov deals are in the works with Google and Microsoft. Trump announces a 100 percent chip tariff Trump says he'll impose 'a tariff of approximately 100 percent' on all semiconductors manufactured abroad, POLITICO's Doug Palmer reports. During a Wednesday press conference with Apple CEO Tim Cook, the president indicated that the import tax was intended to pressure more semiconductor firms to come to the U.S. 'If you're building in the United States of America, there's no charge,' Trump said. He added, 'The chip companies are all coming back home.' A White House official told POLITICO that the tariffs will be designed to reshore manufacturing while also limiting disruptions to the supply chain. Trump has previously used tariffs as leverage to increase investment in domestic chip manufacturing. He claimed in April that he'd convinced Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company to pitch in another $100 billion for its expansion into the U.S. by threatening the company with a 100 percent tariff as well. The Commerce Department has also been renegotiating grants provided under the CHIPS Act to press semiconductor companies to up their investments in American manufacturing. post of the day THE FUTURE IN 5 LINKS Stay in touch with the whole team: Aaron Mak (amak@ Mohar Chatterjee (mchatterjee@ Steve Heuser (sheuser@ Nate Robson (nrobson@ and Daniella Cheslow (dcheslow@
