Nevada hearing could provide look into dispute over who will control Murdoch empire
A hearing before Nevada's high court today could provide the first public window into a secretive legal dispute over who will control Rupert Murdoch's powerful media empire after he dies.
The case over the Murdoch family trust has been unfolding behind closed doors in state court in Reno, Nevada. But the proceedings have remained under seal, with the Nevada courts barely acknowledging the legal action even exists.
Media outlets including CNN, the New York Times and the Washington Post are now asking the Nevada supreme court to unseal the case and make future hearings public. The court is scheduled to hear arguments in the afternoon in Carson City, the capital.
In September, the news organizations petitioned a district court for access, arguing that the secrecy violated a constitutional right to access.
'The public has immense interest in which of Murdoch's children will succeed him,' the news outlets said in their petition. 'The succession will affect thousands of jobs, millions of worldwide media consumers, and the American political landscape.'
The outlets argued that 'Nevada's courts are accountable to the public, and the public is entitled to know whether the trust at issue is being administered in accordance with the law. Certainly, an entire matter cannot be sealed such that its very existence is not a public record, even if all parties to the litigation agree.'
But the district court denied that request and the proceedings remained private.
Now, Rupert Murdoch's challenge to change the trust to keep just one of his sons, Lachlan, in charge and ensure that Fox News maintains its conservative-leaning editorial slant, looks set continue alongside challenges by media organizations to have open access to the proceedings.
In December, it was revealed that the Nevada's probate court had rejected the media mogul's challenge, ruling that Murdoch's four adult children would still have equal, shared control over their father's media empire upon his death.
Nevada commissioner Edmund Gorman concluded that Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch had acted in 'bad faith' in their attempts to change the terms of the trust.
In the opinion, according to the Times, Gorman accused the elder Murdoch of organizing a 'carefully crafted charade' to 'permanently cement Lachlan Murdoch's executive roles' inside the empire 'regardless of the impacts such control would have over the companies or the beneficiaries' of the family trust, according to the Times. skip past newsletter promotion
Sign up to Headlines US
Get the most important US headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
after newsletter promotion
In a statement, James, Elisabeth and Prudence told the Times: 'We welcome Commissioner Gorman's decision and hope that we can move beyond this litigation to focus on strengthening and rebuilding relationships among all family members.'
Adam Streisand, a lawyer for Rupert Murdoch, told the newspaper at the time that they were disappointed with the ruling and intended to appeal. Another evidentiary hearing is scheduled for this month.
The Associated Press contributed to this report
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
15 hours ago
- The Independent
Vance made a brief trip to Montana to speak to Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch, AP sources say
Vice President JD Vance on Tuesday made a brief trip to Montana, where he spoke to media mogul Rupert Murdoch; his son Lachlan Murdoch, the head of Fox News and News Corp.; and a group of other Fox News executives, according to two people familiar with the trip. Vance met with the group at the Murdoch family ranch in southwest Montana near Dillon, according to the people. They confirmed the visit to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about it. It's not clear why the vice president addressed the group or what they spoke about. A spokesperson for Fox News Channel did not respond to a message seeking comment. The vice president's office does not release a schedule for Vance and did not offer advance notice of the trip, so the surprise arrival of Air Force Two in Butte, Montana, set off local speculation as his motorcade was seen driving away. The Murdoch ranch near Dillon is roughly 70 miles (110 kilometers) south of Butte. The ranch, which Murdoch purchased in 2021, is spread across two valleys and a mountain range and has some 12,000 cattle. It sits near Yellowstone National Park along the Montana-Idaho border. According to flight restrictions issued by the Federal Aviation Administration, the vice presidential aircraft was only on the ground for a matter of hours. Vance was scheduled to have lunch with President Donald Trump on Wednesday, according to the president's publicly released schedule, meaning the vice president presumably returned to Washington shortly after meeting the Murdochs 2,200 miles (3,500 kilometers) away on Tuesday night. Rupert Murdoch and his media organization have long been friendly with Republicans and have, for the most part, had a friendly relationship with Trump. He appeared at Trump's inauguration and was spotted earlier this year in the Oval Office. Rupert Murdoch, 94, stepped down as the head of Fox News and News Corp. in 2023 and handed control over to son Lachlan. Montana state Auditor James Brown told the Montana Talks radio show that he helped Vance's staff arrange the trip. Brown, who did not respond to a message Wednesday from the AP, said he met the vice president when Vance landed at the airport and then helped escort Vance's entourage on an hourlong drive by driving second lady Usha Vance's staff. ___ Associated Press writers Zeke Miller in Washington and Matthew Brown in Billings, Montana, contributed to this report.
Spectator
15 hours ago
- Spectator
Has deporting illegals become illegal?
The circus around Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia – whose full name the New York Times likes to trot out as if citing an old-school English aristocrat – speaks volumes about the immigration battle roiling the US. Our friend Kilmar is what we fuddy-duddies insist on calling an illegal immigrant. The Salvadoran crossed clandestinely into the US in 2012. As for what he's done since, that depends on whom you ask. According to his GoFundMe page, Kilmar is a 'husband, union worker and father of a disabled five-year-old'. Left-wing media portray 'the Maryland man' – a tag akin to Axel Rudakubana's 'a Welshman' – as an industrious metalworker devoted to his family. His wife has rowed back on the temporary protective order she once requested, claiming she'd been over-cautious. Yet according to the Trump administration, Kilmar is a member of the notoriously violent street gang MS-13 who's derived his primary source of income from smuggling hundreds of illegals over the southern border for several years. Choose A or B. In 2019, Kilmar was arrested for loitering along with three other men, one a suspected MS-13 member. He was carrying marijuana, for which (of course) he wasn't charged. From his clothing, tattoos and, more persuasively, a 'past proven and reliable' confidential source who verified he was an active gang member using the moniker 'Chele', police adjudged that Kilmar was a gangbanger, for which (of course) he wasn't charged. He was turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement – whose acronym, ICE, reinforces its rep as cold-hearted – which moved to deport him. Kilmar (of course) contested his removal. The immigration judge hearing Kilmar's case concurred that the defendant was indeed a gang member and deportable; the Salvadoran (of course) appealed the decision, which nevertheless was upheld. Kilmar (of course) then filed for asylum, as well as for a 'withholding of removal'. A subsequent immigration judge stayed his deportation to his home country, where his wellbeing might be endangered by local gangs. Now, you might suppose that putting yourself in the way of other famously rivalrous gangs would come with the territory when you join one yourself. Like, inter-gang violence seems a natural hazard of this line of work. But it's not only British immigration judges who are soft touches. Only mass round-ups and swift group trials could effectively address the millions of gate-crashers Kilmar (of course) remained in the US. In 2022, he was pulled over for speeding while driving eight other Hispanic men of uncertain immigration status in an SUV altered to add a third row of seats for extra passengers. The officers suspected human-trafficking; Kilmar's driving licence had expired; a run of his number plate through the database turned up a federal note on likely membership of MS-13. Yet when the patrolmen contacted the feds, ICE (of course) declined to pick him up. So Kilmar was (of course) released without charge. Even so, his claim that he was merely transporting construction workers between jobs did not, under investigation, hold up. Fast-forward to 2025 and why this otherwise obscure Salvadoran who is or is not a thug merits such a detailed lowdown. Meaning (of course) that this case has to do with Donald Trump – whose evil minions in March flew more than 230 purported criminals to a Salvadoran prison, including none other than Kilmar, whom ICE did finally pick up (no 'of course' there). The flights' timing was judicially dodgy. The planes did or didn't take off after a federal judge ruled that the flights could not proceed until the deportees were given the opportunity to challenge their removal. The administration appealed to the Supreme Court, which directed Trump to 'facilitate' Kilmar's return to the US. Because, remember, there was only one country to which he could not be deported because of that credulous 2019 decision: his own. Hence the Justice Department's acceptance that Kilmar's deportation was an 'administrative error'. During this proxy war with Trump, Democrats have pretended to hair-tear over poor Kilmar, mouldering away in a nasty foreign prison and deprived of due process. But the story I just laid out has due process, not to mention leniency or even dereliction on the part of the authorities, up the wazoo. Meanwhile, after slyly getting their jurisprudential ducks in a row, last week Trump and co finally got Kilmar flown back to the US, only to arrest him immediately for human-trafficking – with every intention of convicting the guy and then deporting him right back to El Salvador. What do we make of this farce? The American commentariat has focused on a potential showdown between Trump and the judiciary, claiming to fear a flat-out executive refusal to follow court orders but secretly rather hoping that Trump does defy the courts and thus reveals himself as an unconstitutional tyrant. I view this absurd tale through a different lens. All these trials and flights for a lone illegal alien are expensive. The amount of 'due process' the American justice system affords every single illegal makes deportation at any scale impossible. There isn't enough time and money and there aren't nearly enough judges to make any but a token gesture toward the mass deportation of illegals that Trump has promised. That amounts to a victory not just for Democrats but also for disorder. I'd assess the odds that Kilmar is a thug at about 90 per cent. But proving membership of unofficial allegiances in court is a bastard. If every individual deportation case must be adjudicated according to exacting evidentiary rules and appeal procedures, America's drastic, undemocratic demographic change will proceed inexorably. Only mass round-ups and swift group trials could effectively address the staggering ten million gate-crashers during the Biden administration alone. What are the chances of that? In New York at the weekend, ICE raids were impeded by LA-style crowds of righteously indignant protestors screaming: 'Let them go! Let them go!' The officers just doing their jobs looked beleaguered, tired, numb and pre-defeated. After all the ICE agents' thankless labours, what proportion of their detainees will still get to stay in the country in the end? I'll take another stab at 90 per cent.
The Guardian
a day ago
- The Guardian
Fulbright board quits due to Trump administration's political meddling
All 12 members of the prestigious Fulbright program's board have reportedly resigned in protest of what they describe as unprecedented political interference by the Trump administration, which has blocked scholarships for nearly 200 American academics. The board, according to a memo obtained by the New York Times, accused the state department of acting illegally by cancelling awards already approved for professors and researchers due to travel overseas this summer, following a year-long selection process that concluded over the winter. The administration is also reviewing applications from approximately 1,200 foreign scholars already approved to study in the US, potentially disrupting exchanges that were due to begin with acceptance letters in April. 'We believe these actions not only contradict the statute but are antithetical to the Fulbright mission and the values, including free speech and academic freedom, that Congress specified in the statute,' the board's members wrote in their resignation letter. The mass resignation represents a significant escalation in tensions between the Trump administration and academic institutions. The White House has been systematically targeting higher education, with 45 universities currently under investigation as part of Trump's anti-DEI crackdown, including dozens of state schools and two Ivy League institutions. The administration has also been freezing federal funding to major universities, with more than $1bn in funding frozen for Cornell University, almost $800m for Northwestern University, and $8.7bn in federal grants and contracts under review for Harvard University. Now, secretary of state Marco Rubio is reportedly considering whether Harvard should be investigated for violating federal sanctions by collaborating on a panel with Chinese officials blacklisted by the US government. According to sources who spoke anonymously to the New York Times, the department's public diplomacy office has begun sending rejection letters to scholars based primarily on their research topics. Areas of study reportedly targeted include climate change, migration, gender studies, race and ethnicity, and various scientific disciplines. The public diplomacy office is headed by Darren Beattie, a political appointee previously dismissed from the first Trump administration after speaking at a conference attended by white nationalists. The board also raised concerns about proposed budget cuts that would slash funding for educational and cultural affairs from $691m to $50m. 'Injecting politics and ideological mandates into the Fulbright program violates the letter and spirit of the law that Congress so wisely established nearly eight decades ago,' the board concluded in their letter.
