LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — A federal judge temporarily blocked on Monday Arkansas' first-in-the-nation law that would have prohibited pharmacy benefit managers from owning pharmacies in the state. U.S. District Judge Brian Miller issued a preliminary injunction against the law restricting pharmacy benefit managers, who run prescription drug coverage for big clients that include health insurers and employers that provide coverage. Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed the restriction into law earlier this year, and it was set to take effect Jan. 1, 2026. CVS and Express Scripts had sued the state over the law. The law, Miller wrote, "appears to overtly discriminate against plaintiffs as out of state companies and the state has failed to show that it has no other means to advance its interests." Republican Attorney General Tim Griffin said he respected the court's decision and planned to appeal. Supporters of the Arkansas law have said it's needed because pharmacy benefit managers are forcing independent pharmacies, especially those in rural areas, to close. CVS and Express Scripts in their lawsuits said the restriction would have devastating effects on consumers if it was allowed to take effect. CVS, which ran TV ads urging Sanders to veto the legislation, has said it would have to close its 23 retail pharmacies in the state if the law takes effect. The company said it was pleased with the decision. "We continue to be focused on serving people in Arkansas and are actively looking to work together with the state to reduce drug prices and ensure access to pharmacies," CVS said in a statement. Arkansas is among several states where lawmakers have taken up efforts to regulate pharmacy benefit managers.

Civil rights lawyers seeking a temporary restraining order against an immigration detention center in the Florida Everglades say that "Alligator Alcatraz" detainees have been barred from meeting attorneys, are being held without any charges and that a federal immigration court has canceled bond hearings. The immigration attorneys argued Monday during a virtual hearing that the detainees' constitutional rights were being violated and that 100 detainees already had been deported from "Alligator Alcatraz." Lawyers who have shown up for bond hearings for "Alligator Alcatraz" detainees have been told that the immigration court doesn't have jurisdiction over their clients, and the civil rights attorneys demanded that federal and state officials identify an immigration court that has jurisdiction over the detainees so it can start accepting petitions for bond. "This is an emergency situation," Eunice Cho, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, said during the hearing in federal court in Miami. "Officers at 'Alligator Alcatraz' are going around trying to force people to sign deportation orders without the ability to speak to counsel." But Nicholas Meros, an attorney representing Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, said the situation had evolved since the civil rights groups' lawsuit was filed July 16. Videoconference rooms had been set up so detainees can talk to attorneys, and in-person meetings between detainees and attorneys had started. "There have been a number of facts that have changed," Meros said during Monday's hearing. U.S. District Judge Rodolfo Ruiz, an appointee of President Donald Trump, didn't make an immediate ruling. He asked the civil rights attorneys to refile their complaint to consolidate their pleadings as a request for a preliminary injunction, and he set a briefing schedule that will end with an in-person court hearing on Aug. 18. The judge warned that his role was to provide relief to any proven constitutional violations and said that "attempts to transform the court into the warden of 'Alligator Alcatraz' is not going to happen here." The judge also allowed the civil rights groups to argue for the release of any agreements between the federal and state governments showing who has authority over the detention center, a murky issue since it opened a month ago. Knowing more about any agreements "would be good for all sides since the court may be walking into a bit of a black hole about the interplay between the federal and state authorities and certainly jurisdictional concerns," Ruiz said. "And that's part of the problem — who is doing what in this facility?" The lawsuit is the second one challenging "Alligator Alcatraz." Environmental groups last month sued federal and state officials asking that the project built on an airstrip in the heart of the Florida Everglades be halted because the process didn't follow state and federal environmental laws. Attorneys for the state of Florida and federal government have argued in both cases that the federal court's southern district in Florida was the wrong venue since the airstrip is located in neighboring Collier County, which is a part of the middle district, even though the property is owned by Miami-Dade County. They also argued that decision-making took place in Tallahassee, which is in the northern district. A hearing over whether the southern district venue is proper in the environmental case is set for Wednesday. "All the activities that plaintiffs allege harm their interests — construction, paving, detention — occurred in the Middle District, not in the Southern District. And all the relevant decision-making occurred in either the Middle District or the Northern District of Florida," U.S. Department of Justice attorneys said Friday in a court filing for the environmental lawsuit. Critics have condemned the facility as a cruel and inhumane threat to detainees, while DeSantis and other Republican state officials have defended it as part of the state's aggressive push to support President Donald Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration. U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has praised Florida for coming forward with the idea, as the department looks to significantly expand its immigration detention capacity. At a news conference in Panama City Beach on Monday, DeSantis said he hoped the pace of deportations picked up at the facility. "The reality is, if you don't support sending somebody back to their own country who came in illegally and has already been ordered that they're violating the law and ordered to be removed, if you don't support that, then you are for an open border," DeSantis said. "I reject that. That is not how a country can operate."

Famous for his fearless bravado as a pro wrestler, Hulk Hogan won one of his most notable victories in a Florida courtroom by emphasizing his humiliation and emotional distress after a news and gossip website published a video of Hogan having sex with a friend's wife. A 2016 civil trial that pitted the First Amendment against the privacy rights of celebrities ended with a jury awarding Hogan a whopping $140 million in his lawsuit against Gawker Media. Though both parties later settled on $31 million to avoid protracted appeals, the case put Gawker out of business. It also ensured Hogan, who died Thursday at age 71, and his legal team would have a long-term impact on media law. The case showed that, in certain circumstances, celebrities could persuade a jury that their right to privacy outweighs the freedom of the press — even when the published material was true. The case put media outlets on notice that "the public doesn't necessarily like the press," especially when reporting intrudes into intimate details of even public figures' private lives, said Samantha Barbas, a University of Iowa law professor who writes about press freedoms and First Amendment issues. She said it also emboldened celebrities, politicians and others in the public spotlight to be more aggressive in suing over unflattering news coverage — as seen recently in President Donald Trump's pursuit of court cases against the Wall Street Journal, ABC and CBS. "I think the lasting effect of the Hulk Hogan case was it really started this trend of libel and privacy lawsuits being weaponized to kind of take down these media organizations," Barbas said. Hogan wept hearing the verdict in a case that was 'real personal' Video posting Hogan, whose given name was Terry Bollea, sued Gawker for invading his privacy after the website in 2012 posted an edited version of a video of Hogan having sex with the wife of his then-best friend, Florida-based radio DJ Bubba The Love Sponge Clem. Clem gave his blessing to the coupling and recorded the video that was later leaked to Gawker. Hogan insisted he was unaware the intimate encounter was being filmed. The former WWE champion testified that he was "completely humiliated" when the sex video became public. Hogan's lead trial attorney, Ken Turkel, recalled Thursday how his muscular, mustachioed client cried in court as the jury verdict was read. "To him the privacy part of it was integral. It was important," Turkel said. "Eight-year-old kids were googling 'Hulk Hogan' and 'Wrestlemania,' and they were getting a sex tape. That was hurtful to him in a real personal way." The three-week trial was closely followed far beyond the courtroom in St. Petersburg, Florida, as thousands of wrestling fans, First Amendment watchers and others stayed glued to their screens as the trial was streamed live online. Salacious details emerged about Hogan's sex life as jurors and spectators viewed. images of him in thong underwear. Other testimony focused on how New York-based Gawker practiced journalism differently than traditional news outlets. And Hogan explained to the jury about the difference between his wrestling persona and his private life. Lawsuit’s sposnor Another detail that dropped after the trial: Hogan's legal team had been bankrolled by Peter Thiel, the tech billionaire and PayPal co-founder. Gawker had publicly outed Thiel as gay in 2007. Thiel said funding Hogan's lawsuit was "less about revenge and more about specific deterrence." The jury ultimately rejected arguments by Gawker's attorneys that Hogan's sex tape was newsworthy and that publishing it, no matter how distasteful, was protected speech under the First Amendment. "Now more people, including judges, understand that it's possible to sue someone for revealing something truthful, as long as that something is deeply personal and its publication is highly offensive," said Amy Gajda, a Brooklyn Law School professor who followed and wrote about the case against Gawker. News outlets still have broad legal protection for publishing information about public figures, even things that would generally be considered private, Gajda said "As long as there is news value in what is published and the media can argue that effectively, they can get a privacy case dismissed very early on," she said.