Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni are once again at the center of headline-making drama, but this time, it’s the courtroom—not the movie set—fueling the fire. These two Hollywood figures, known for their roles in the upcoming film "It Ends With Us," are now locked in a bitter legal fight that has the entertainment world watching closely.
According to Fox News, Lively has withdrawn her emotional distress claims against Baldoni after his legal team requested her therapy records. The move comes as part of an increasingly tense legal battle that has seen lawsuits, countersuits, and escalating public statements from both camps.
Lively’s decision to drop the emotional distress claims, at least for now, raises new questions about the direction of her lawsuit, which still contains multiple other serious allegations. Meanwhile, Baldoni’s team accuses Lively of trying to avoid transparency, while Lively’s lawyers insist the withdrawal is a routine legal maneuver, not an admission or retreat.
The conflict began when Blake Lively filed a lawsuit against Justin Baldoni and producer Jamey Heath, alleging sexual harassment, retaliation, and emotional distress. Her complaint, first brought before the California Civil Rights Department and then in federal court last December, quickly made waves in the entertainment industry.
Shortly after, Baldoni and his team responded aggressively—not just denying the allegations but filing a staggering $400 million lawsuit against Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds. Baldoni accuses the couple of civil extortion and defamation, ratcheting up the stakes in a case already thick with Hollywood intrigue.
On Monday, the drama took another turn. Baldoni’s lawyers demanded access to Lively’s therapy notes and identification of her mental health providers to challenge her emotional distress claims. Instead of complying, Lively’s counsel informed the court that she would withdraw those specific claims, but only "without prejudice," meaning she could re-file them later.
Baldoni’s team immediately pushed back against Lively’s decision to withdraw without prejudice, arguing that she wanted to sidestep providing evidence while keeping the option to revive her claims at a more opportune moment. In their court filing, Baldoni’s lawyers said:
Instead of complying with the Medical RFPs, Ms. Lively’s counsel recently advised us, in writing, that Ms. Lively is withdrawing her [infliction of emotional distress] Claims. However, Ms. Lively has refused the Wayfarer Parties’ reasonable request that the withdrawal of such claims be with prejudice. She is only willing to withdraw her claims without prejudice.
Lively’s lawyers, Esra Hudson and Mike Gottlieb, swiftly dismissed the accusations as nothing more than legal theatrics intended for the tabloids. They insisted that their client’s legal strategy is standard procedure and that Baldoni and his team are simply trying to score points in the court of public opinion.
"Once again this is a routine part of the litigation process that is being used as a press stunt. We are doing what trial lawyers do: preparing our case for trial by streamlining and focusing it; they are doing what they do: desperately seeking another tired round of tabloid coverage," they stated.
Despite the withdrawn claims, Lively’s lawsuit continues. She is still pursuing allegations of sexual harassment, retaliation, and other damages, which she and her legal team argue are more than sufficient to prove her case. According to Lively’s lawyers, Baldoni’s supposed "retaliatory" lawsuits have only opened him up to even greater legal risk.
"The Baldoni-Wayfarer strategy of filing retaliatory claims has exposed them to expansive new damages claims under California law, rendering certain of Ms. Lively’s original claims no longer necessary," her lawyers said. They maintain that Lively still "continues to allege emotional distress, as part of numerous other claims in her lawsuit, such as sexual harassment and retaliation, and massive additional compensatory damages on all of her claims."
Meanwhile, Baldoni’s camp has taken their defense to the public. In addition to releasing a timeline of their own and unedited footage from the set of "It Ends With Us," they argue that the evidence supports their side of the story. Both parties claim that the footage bolsters their respective cases, further muddying the waters for any outside observer.
The high-profile legal confrontation has also seen both sides attempt to control the media narrative. Following Baldoni’s release of footage and public statements, Lively’s team demanded a gag order on Baldoni’s lawyer, Bryan Freedman. Baldoni’s legal team fired back, calling the request "an intimidation tactic" and "tactical gamesmanship."
A judge ultimately ordered both parties to follow the New York Rules of Professional Conduct, effectively restricting their ability to speak to the press and escalating the public feud. Despite this, public interest in the case continues to grow, fueled by each new revelation and legal maneuver.
Lively has spoken publicly about the toll the past year has taken on her, telling Seth Meyers that she’s experienced both the "highest highs" and "lowest lows" of her life as she fights her legal battle. She used her platform to highlight the challenges women face when speaking out, saying, "fear is by design, it's what keeps us silent," and crediting other women for giving her the strength to continue.
Puerto Rico’s top court just made a surprising move, thrusting the island territory into the national spotlight. Six residents took their fight for recognition all the way to the highest bench, igniting a debate over personal identity, legal rights, and government power.
According to the Washington Examiner, the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico ruled on May 30 that nonbinary people may now select an “X” as their gender marker on official birth certificates. The Court’s ruling, which stemmed from a lawsuit, orders government forms to include a nonbinary option for the first time in Puerto Rican history.
The case was triggered by a group of six individuals who argued their birth certificates did not reflect their gender identity. While transgender people in Puerto Rico have been able to change their gender marker from male to female or vice versa since 2018, nonbinary individuals—those who identify as neither—were left out. The plaintiffs claimed this exclusion was unconstitutional and discriminatory.
Before this historic decision, Puerto Rico’s policy only allowed for male or female gender markers on birth certificates. Nonbinary citizens argued this policy forced them to misrepresent themselves in official documents. They challenged the government’s refusal, citing violations of the right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The Supreme Court took their claims seriously. In its ruling, the justices emphasized their obligation to ensure equal protection for all Puerto Ricans. The court’s filing read, “Since 2018, transgender individuals in Puerto Rico have been permitted to amend the gender marker on their birth certificate, from either male to female or from female to male. But the Plaintiffs in this case are nonbinary, meaning that their gender identity is neither male nor female. Their request is simple: to be permitted to have a gender marker on their birth certificate that reflects their true gender identity, like everyone else.”
Notably, the court concluded that there was no rational reason to deny the request. It found the policy was arbitrary and provided no justification for treating nonbinary individuals differently.
The decision has sparked a flurry of reactions, especially among those concerned about social and legal implications. Some critics argue that expanding gender categories on official documents could pose problems for government record-keeping, public safety, and traditional values.
Conservative voices have described the ruling as another example of activist courts overruling the will of the people. They warn that making legal sex markers a matter of personal choice rather than biology could create confusion and open the door to abuses. Others believe the court has gone beyond its mandate by compelling the government to recognize identities that are not biologically defined.
Still, the court’s decision aligns Puerto Rico with at least seventeen states on the mainland that already allow a nonbinary “X” marker on birth certificates. Supporters say this is a step toward affirming the dignity and rights of all people, regardless of gender identity.
Puerto Rico’s government has indicated it will comply with the Supreme Court’s order, but implementation details remain unresolved. Governor Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon acknowledged the ruling and said her administration is awaiting recommendations from the Justice Department before moving forward with the changes.
In practical terms, the government must amend its Application for Gender Change form to include the “X” option. This will allow nonbinary individuals to update their birth certificates, marking a significant shift in official policy. The court also noted that the federal courts must act to guarantee equal protection when state policies treat certain groups unfavorably.
As authorities work out the administrative steps, some lawmakers and advocacy groups are watching closely. They are eager to see how the new policy will be applied and whether it will lead to further changes in other areas of law and government documentation.
This ruling comes seven years after a U.S. federal court required Puerto Rico to allow transgender residents to change their birth certificates. The Supreme Court’s latest decision could set a precedent, encouraging activists elsewhere to push for similar reforms in other U.S. territories and states.
Supporters of the ruling argue that it upholds fairness and reflects evolving understandings of gender. They see it as an overdue recognition of people who have long existed but were denied legal acknowledgment. Detractors, on the other hand, caution that such changes could have unforeseen consequences in everything from sports to prisons to family law.
For now, the focus remains on Puerto Rico as it navigates the complexities of implementing the new policy. As debates continue, the case highlights the ongoing tension between individual rights and collective standards in American society.
The Biden administration has come under fire after newly released emails revealed concerns about the potential for cancer-causing toxins in East Palestine, Ohio, after a train derailment in 2023.
The emails reveal that the administration acknowledged potential health risks behind the scenes, despite initial public claims that residents were safe, leading to criticism of the broader disaster response, as reported by The New York Post.
On Feb. 3, 2023, a Norfolk Southern train derailed in East Palestine, unleashing harmful chemicals into the air.
The incident included an open burn of 115,000 gallons of vinyl chloride, a known carcinogen. This forced residents to evacuate and resulted in strange illnesses and casualties among livestock, heightening anxiety around the incident's environmental and health impact.
More than a year later, on March 29, 2024, FEMA’s recovery leader, James McPherson, hinted at the severity of the toxic risk in a candid email regarding the possibility of a "cancer cluster" in East Palestine. In his communication, he also remarked on the grave consequences of the "really toxic plume" formed in the early stages of the blaze. These emails, recently brought to light, contrast sharply with public assurances provided in the disaster's aftermath.
Then-President Joe Biden publicly criticized railroad companies for the derailment but commended his administration for its efforts in managing the crisis in East Palestine.
Meanwhile, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took a prominent role in addressing the situation. Administrator Michael Regan visited the area on Feb. 22, 2023, to assert the safety of the local water supply, reassuring residents about their safety concerning drinking water contamination.
The EPA has collected over 100 million air samples and more than 25,000 other samples from the affected area. According to ongoing assessments, these show no existing danger from the accident. Regan emphasized the commitment to science-driven evaluations, aiming to quell public worry over health risks. Despite official assurances, a noted watchdog group criticized the federal response, pointing out deficits in the testing and assessment phases.
Lesley Pacey of the watchdog group questioned the thoroughness of the testing techniques, asserting that the testing didn’t always encompass all necessary chemicals or happen in appropriate locations. Questions were also raised about the reliance on Norfolk Southern contractors, who were suspected of using inadequate equipment. Pacey expressed that the response to the incident failed substantially right from the beginning.
Delays in deploying ASPECT planes crucial for air quality monitoring added to the challenges faced by the administration. These delays were attributed to bad weather, which hindered immediate response efforts by four days. Criticism extends further to insufficient water supply monitoring and questionable decisions to burn harmful chemicals, practices that deviated from routine protocols.
Emails from federal officials, surfacing over a year after the derailment, show deliberations about establishing systems to spot potential cancer clusters, underscoring the long-term health concerns associated with the derailment. The Justice Department reached a settlement with Norfolk Southern, amounting to $310 million for addressing the community's impacts from the disaster.
Subsequent analyses and reports suggest improvements and adjustments to federal emergency responses in similar future scenarios. The derailment in East Palestine continues to captivate public concern, raising debates about the sufficiency of government reactions and the matter of corporate culpability in environmental safety.
As the East Palestine community seeks closure and assurance, varied opinions and perspectives on the federal response sustain a definitive discourse on the priorities when dealing with such high-risk situations. The situation highlights the necessity for effective communication and timely execution of emergency protocols when public health is compromised.
The United States Supreme Court has sided with the Trump administration, allowing it to terminate a Biden-era immigration program that provided temporary legal protections to certain migrants.
The high court's decision affects more than half a million migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela who had relied on the Biden administration’s program for protection and work authorization, as The Hill reports.
This ruling was issued by the Supreme Court on Friday and revokes the parole program that was instituted by President Joe Biden. The program was designed to grant legal status and two-year work permits to 532,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, contingent upon securing a U.S.-based financial sponsor. The primary goal of this initiative was to alleviate the mounting pressure at the U.S.-Mexico border.
Republican lawmakers have criticized the program, arguing it constitutes an overextension of humanitarian parole powers. Although lower courts previously halted the Trump administration's bid to end the program, the Supreme Court's recent decision overturns those blocks. This marks a continuation of the Trump administration's broader agenda to tighten immigration policies, emphasizing security and control over U.S. borders and immigration processes.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a strong dissent. Jackson expressed concern over the impact of the ruling, stressing the "devastating consequences" it poses to nearly half a million noncitizens whose lives are now uncertain as their legal claims remain unresolved.
Her dissent, which Sotomayor joined, highlighted what they viewed as the court's insufficient consideration of the potential irreparable harm.
The affected parole program was initially launched to ease issues at the U.S.-Mexico border, allowing selected migrants legal residency and work opportunities in the United States. Now, with its revocation, many migrants face an unclear future regarding their status in the country.
This development is part of the Trump administration's broader strategy to overturn programs that had temporarily expanded legal protections for migrants from certain countries.
Adding to the complexity is Judge Indira Talwani's recent ruling, which maintains other parole protections for certain groups, such as Afghans and Ukrainians. This indicates selective changes in immigration programs with a more focused approach, distinguishing it from broader policy changes.
Also noteworthy is the Trump administration's continued efforts to rescind Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for migrants hailing from Venezuela and Haiti. This status had been granted initially as a temporary form of relief to those fleeing dire conditions in their home countries, yet it remains on the chopping block as the administration reconsiders previous U.S. immigration policies.
The Supreme Court previously aligned with Trump's initiative to end TPS for some Venezuelans. Not all within the Republican ranks support these sweeping changes. Among those voicing concern is Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL), who has suggested that more nuanced evaluations should be applied instead of eliminating crucial protections wholesale.
He argued that individuals from regions like Cuba and Venezuela might possess more valid asylum claims due to the oppressive conditions there.
These developments underline a contentious debate within the United States on the balance between sovereignty, national security, and humanitarian obligations.
As the Trump administration proceeds with its immigration policy revisions, the impact on migrant communities and the country's overall immigration landscape remains a key area for ongoing debate and legal scrutiny.
The broader implications of the Supreme Court's decision and the administration's immigration policy strategies will continue to reverberate, influencing the lives of countless individuals and shaping the national discourse on immigration reform and international humanitarian responsibilities.
The makers of Skittles candy have quietly made a significant change to their colorful treat. Mars Wrigley has confirmed it has removed titanium dioxide, a whitening agent that has raised health concerns, from its popular rainbow-colored candies in the United States.
According to Fox News, a spokesperson for Mars Wrigley recently confirmed the ingredient change for the Skittles portfolio. The New Jersey-based company made the decision following growing scrutiny of the additive.
The ingredient change comes shortly after the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission, chaired by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., released a report highlighting titanium dioxide as a potential health concern. The report specifically noted the additive may cause cellular and DNA damage.
Titanium dioxide has long been used in food products to create a whiter appearance and opacity in various foods. The ingredient is particularly common in candies, with the FDA's FoodData Central website listing 4,362 candy products containing the substance.
The European Union took stronger action against the ingredient in 2022, implementing an outright ban following a report from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). That report pointed to genotoxicity concerns associated with the additive.
The EFSA report specifically noted that "genotoxicity refers to the ability of a chemical substance to damage DNA, the genetic material of cells." This finding was significant enough for European regulators to remove the substance from food products.
Mars Wrigley emphasized its commitment to product safety while confirming the ingredient change. The company maintains that consumer safety remains its highest priority.
"Our commitment to quality is what has enabled Mars to be enjoyed by consumers for over a century, and nothing is more important than the safety of our products," the Mars Wrigley spokesperson told Fox News Digital. This statement underscores the company's focus on maintaining consumer trust amid growing scrutiny of food additives.
The spokesperson further stated that all their products "are safe to enjoy and meet the high standards and applicable regulations set by food safety authorities around the world," adding that safety standards are something the company "will never compromise on."
The removal of titanium dioxide from Skittles follows a broader trend of food manufacturers responding to health concerns about various additives. This move comes as consumers increasingly demand transparency about ingredients in their food.
The MAHA Commission report released last Thursday took a comprehensive look at chronic diseases, with particular attention to those affecting children. The report listed several additives of potential concern, with titanium dioxide among them.
Research into titanium dioxide has raised red flags beyond the European findings. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health conducted experimental animal inhalation studies with the substance and classified it as a "possible carcinogenic to humans."
The decision by Mars Wrigley could signal a shift in how American food manufacturers approach ingredients that have been banned or restricted in other countries. In-N-Out Burger recently made similar ingredient changes to its drinks and condiments.
The FDA continues to list titanium dioxide as "generally recognized as safe" in the United States, creating a regulatory difference between American and European approaches to food safety. This discrepancy puts pressure on U.S. manufacturers to decide whether to proactively remove ingredients that face restrictions elsewhere.
Mars Wrigley has not detailed what replacement ingredient it is using to maintain Skittles' appearance, nor has the company indicated whether the change will affect other products in its extensive candy portfolio that may contain the additive.
Two Secret Service agents, both female, are now at the center of a controversy that has rippled through Washington, D.C., after a late-night altercation outside the home of former President Barack Obama. The incident, which unfolded in the early hours of Wednesday, May 21, was caught on video and quickly spread across social media.
According to The Hill, the Secret Service has confirmed the authenticity of the footage and announced the immediate suspension of the two Uniformed Division officers involved. The episode, which occurred just steps from Obama’s residence, is now the subject of an internal investigation as officials scramble to address concerns over discipline and accountability.
The revelation has triggered a firestorm of questions about the state of the Secret Service, an agency already under scrutiny in recent years for a series of high-profile missteps. Details about what led to the physical altercation remain scarce, but the agency’s swift response has underscored the seriousness with which leadership views breaches of conduct—even among their own.
Eyewitnesses and social media users were quick to document the fight, which reportedly took place at approximately 2:30 a.m. outside the Obama family’s Washington, D.C., home. The video, showing two female officers engaged in a physical confrontation, has since been viewed thousands of times online, fueling speculation about what led to the breakdown in discipline.
Both agents have been suspended from duty pending the outcome of a comprehensive internal review, according to statements released by agency spokespeople. Officials have not released the identities of the officers or the specifics of the dispute, citing privacy and ongoing personnel procedures.
The Secret Service, tasked with protecting current and former presidents and their families, maintains a strict code of conduct for all employees. The breach in professional behavior has been widely condemned by leadership, who emphasized that any violation of these standards is considered unacceptable.
Agency representatives have been quick to address the public uproar, making it clear that this incident will not be brushed aside. In a statement, a Secret Service spokesperson said,
The U.S. Secret Service is aware of an on-duty altercation that occurred between two Uniformed Division officers at approximately 2:30 a.m. on May 21. The individuals involved were suspended from duty and this matter is the subject of an internal investigation.
The agency has stopped short of discussing potential disciplinary actions, instead reiterating its commitment to transparency and internal discipline. Discussions about the need for reform and stronger oversight within the Secret Service have resurfaced as a result.
Critics argue that the episode highlights persistent issues within the agency, including reported lapses in morale and training. While some former officials have downplayed the incident as an isolated lapse, others point to a pattern of embarrassing mishaps that have plagued the Service in recent years.
Some observers have seized on the altercation as evidence of deeper problems within the Secret Service, raising concerns about the agency’s ability to maintain order under pressure. Calls for greater oversight have grown louder in the wake of the video’s viral circulation, with critics demanding a thorough and transparent investigation.
Defenders of the agency, however, caution against drawing broad conclusions from a single incident. They argue that the vast majority of Secret Service personnel serve with honor and distinction, stressing that infractions such as this are rare and do not reflect the overall professionalism of the force.
While the agency’s leadership moves to reassure the public, outside watchdogs are pressing for more details. The lack of information about what sparked the fight has only fueled rumors and speculation, with some questioning whether agency culture played a role in the altercation.
Amid heightened scrutiny, the Secret Service is now under pressure to demonstrate that it can police its own ranks effectively. The agency has pledged to conduct a thorough inquiry, promising that any conduct falling short of its standards will be addressed “swiftly and appropriately.”
With public trust at stake, the Secret Service’s handling of this incident may set a precedent for how future breaches are managed. Despite assurances that the altercation is being treated seriously, questions remain about whether deeper reforms are needed to restore confidence in the agency.
As the investigation continues, the nation watches to see whether these events will prompt lasting change. The agency, long known for its secrecy and internal discipline, now faces renewed calls for openness as it seeks to move beyond the latest controversy.
Demands for a swift end to violence in Gaza and the fate of Israeli hostages are putting President Donald Trump at the center of the world stage. Trump’s latest comments about an imminent ceasefire have drawn both cautious optimism and deep skepticism from political rivals, allies, and international observers.
President Trump signaled on Sunday that a Gaza ceasefire could be announced “within days,” telling reporters he is determined to “stop the whole situation as quickly as possible.” According to the Daily Mail, Trump’s administration is negotiating with Israel and regional partners in hopes of brokering a deal that would include the release of Israeli hostages.
The potential breakthrough comes amid a deadly escalation in Gaza. Israeli strikes have intensified, with a weekend attack on a school sheltering displaced civilians reportedly killing at least 20 people, most of them children. As international condemnation of Israel’s offensive grows, pressure is mounting on all sides for a resolution.
Trump’s statement—“We want to see if we can stop it. And we've talked to Israel, we want to see if we can stop this whole situation as quickly as possible”—has been met with a mix of hope and suspicion, especially as news outlets in the Middle East report a ceasefire could be declared imminently. The proposed deal would hinge on the release of Israeli hostages held by Hamas, according to anonymous sources cited by regional media.
Meanwhile, Israel’s military actions have triggered global outrage. A strike on the Fahmi al-Jarjawi school in Gaza City, which had been serving as a shelter, left dozens dead and wounded. Rescue workers described the aftermath as a “horrific occupation massacre,” with one spokesperson reporting that most of the victims were children.
Israel’s military justified the attack by claiming it struck “key terrorists who were operating within a Hamas and Islamic Jihad command and control center embedded in an area that previously served as the ‘Faami Aljerjawi’ School.” The military also said, “numerous steps were taken to mitigate the risk of harming civilians,” but images of devastation and injured children have fueled calls for an end to the fighting.
International voices are growing louder in their demands for an immediate ceasefire and greater humanitarian access to Gaza. Arab and European leaders met over the weekend to push for an end to the conflict. Spain’s Foreign Minister, Jose Manuel Albares, publicly called for an arms embargo on Israel and for humanitarian aid to be delivered “massively, without conditions and without limits, and not controlled by Israel.”
The humanitarian crisis in Gaza has reached a tipping point, with aid agencies warning that Israel’s partial easing of a blockade is nowhere near sufficient. The World Food Programme urged Israel to allow “far greater volumes of food assistance into Gaza faster,” citing hunger and desperation among civilians as key drivers of insecurity.
Political tensions have also spilled over into Western capitals. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently accused leaders from the U.K., France, and Canada of siding with Hamas after they issued a joint statement denouncing Israel’s “disproportionate” escalation. Hamas, for its part, welcomed that statement as “an important step” toward restoring international law.
Civilian casualties continue to mount. Gaza’s health ministry reported that at least 3,785 people have been killed since the collapse of the previous ceasefire in March, bringing the total death toll in the conflict to nearly 54,000—most of them civilians. The Gaza civil defense agency described being overwhelmed by the scale of destruction and lacking the equipment to rescue those trapped under rubble.
Strikes across the territory, including in Jabalia, Nuseirat, Deir el-Balah, and Khan Yunis, have killed scores, including entire families. In Khan Yunis, an Israeli strike reportedly killed nine children from a family of doctors, though the Israeli army said it was reviewing the report.
Hostage negotiations remain central to any ceasefire. After Hamas’s October 2023 attack—which left 1,218 Israelis dead and resulted in 251 hostages being taken—at least 57 hostages are believed to remain in Gaza, with 34 presumed dead, according to Israeli military figures.
President Trump’s bid for a rapid ceasefire in Gaza is drawing scrutiny as the conflict’s toll on civilians and regional stability grows. With Israel’s military operations continuing and international condemnation mounting, the coming days will test the ability of U.S. diplomacy to deliver results.
Negotiations between the Trump administration, Israel, and regional actors remain ongoing, with the fate of Israeli hostages and the delivery of humanitarian aid at the heart of any potential agreement. As reported by the Daily Mail, all sides are watching for signs of a breakthrough, but deep divisions persist over the terms and verification of a ceasefire.
The world is now focused on whether Trump’s promise to “stop the whole situation as quickly as possible” will be realized. The consequences for Gaza’s civilians, Israel’s security, and regional stability will hinge on what happens next, as both the hopes and fears of millions rest on the outcome of these high-stakes negotiations.