Summary: Justice Department files to lift injunction on ballroom project U.S. District Judge Richard Leon issued injunction in April National Trust for Historic Preservation opposes lawsuit dismissal The U.S. Justice Department has again asked a federal judge to lift an injunction holding up progress on President Donald Trump's ballroom project, saying the May 23 shooting outside the White House showed an urgent need for improved security. The Justice Department, in a five-page court filing on Sunday, said the incident underscores the critical need for "top level, state of the art security at the White House, including the ballroom," adding that it was vital for national security. It also asks for the lawsuit challenging the project to be dismissed. The court filing stated: "This is a terrible, tremendously harmful case to the United States of America, and all it stands for!" U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, an appointee of former President George ​W. Bush sitting in Washington, ruled in April that Trump lacked legal authority to ‌build the ⁠ballroom without congressional approval. Leon issued an injunction that halted "above-ground construction of the planned ballroom," but his order was quickly put on hold by an appeals court. Construction has continued. The DOJ had previously asked Leon to dissolve his injunction and throw out the lawsuit over the ballroom after a foiled attack at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner in April. Leon has not acted on that request. The lawsuit was filed by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, a congressionally chartered nonprofit organization. It said it would not drop its lawsuit after the attack in April, despite the Justice Department's request. The gunman who fired at a White House ‌checkpoint on May 23 was shot by officers and died after being taken to the hospital that evening, the Secret Service said. (Reporting by Arathy Somasekhar in Houston, editing by Deepa Babington, Rod Nickel)

Summary: Federal court raised X's fine to A$650,000 plus A$100,000 legal costs X admitted contravening Australia's Online Safety Act for 38 days Dispute stemmed from inadequate response to eSafety regulator's information request     An Australian court upheld a regulator's fine against Elon Musk's social media company X Corp after it admitted violating the law by failing to supply information about its online child protection measures, ending a nearly three-year dispute. After the eSafety regulator, a frequent target of online attacks by Musk, fined the company in October 2023 for what it called an inadequate response to a standard request for information about anti-child exploitation processes, the company resolved the dispute on May 21 by admitting wrongdoing. "The respondent admits that it contravened the Act," said Christopher Tran, a lawyer for the eSafety Commissioner, referring to Australia's Online Safety Act, in a Federal Court hearing. "There was ongoing noncompliance for some 38 days." The resolution ends a legal battle which began when the regulator fined the company formerly called Twitter A$610,500 ($437,000) over its answers to some 25 questions. X Corp initially sought to overturn the penalty on grounds that the company had changed its name since being acquired by Musk for $44 billion in 2022. The regulator later took a separate legal action to recover the fine. On May 21, Judge Michael Wheelahan raised the payout to A$650,000 and ordered X to pay another A$100,000 to cover some of the regulator's legal costs. The resolution ties up a loose end for the company which earlier this year was folded into Musk's sprawling technology conglomerate SpaceX ahead of a planned trillion-dollar initial public offering within weeks. X's lawyer Perry Herzfeld said the dispute boiled down to "historic issues relating to the timeliness of provision of information". The contravening conduct took place during a "period of change and transition for the company", he told the court. Tran, for eSafety, acknowledged there was no loss resulting from X's actions but said that "not providing information when requested by a regulator impedes a regulator when doing her work". ($1 = 1.3986 Australian dollars) (Reporting by Byron Kaye; Editing by Kim Coghill and Lincoln Feast.)

Summary: Trump order directs Treasury to advise banks on red flags Order targets payroll tax evasion and off-the-books wages Treasury urged to propose Bank Secrecy Act changes     Non-citizens in the U.S. will face greater scrutiny on their banking activities following an executive order by President Donald Trump on May 19, but the directive was less extensive than a previous proposal floated by Treasury requiring banks to collect clients’ citizenship information. The Trump administration has proposed a number of policies that have sideswiped banks, including the idea floated earlier in the year to collect citizenship data. In January, Trump also blindsided the industry by calling for credit card providers to cap interest rates in a bid to address cost-of-living concerns, and he has targeted Wall Street banks for discriminating against conservatives, a claim they deny. The latest order, issued May 19, however, fell short of calling for citizenship data. Instead it directs the Treasury secretary to issue an advisory to banks to identify red flags tied to payroll tax evasion, concealment of true account ownership, off-the-books wage payments, labor trafficking and the use of individual taxpayer identification numbers to open accounts or obtain credit without verified legal presence in the U.S. The proposal was seen as an example of the administration listening to industry, an executive in a large bank that asked for anonymity said, adding it showed the administration was open to change. Senior industry executives had warned that requiring banks to collect data on their customers’ citizenship or immigration status would be costly and disruptive. “Obviously, the administration wants greater controls on immigration, but the bank regulators have always wanted as many financial transactions to go through the traditional financial systems,” said Ed Mills, a Washington policy analyst with Raymond James. “This would have removed a lot of individuals from the financial system, which could create a national security risk as well,” he added. Banks considered that checking the immigration status and citizenship of all current clients would be very burdensome and nearly impossible, Reuters reported last month. Trade groups have explained that such an order could lead to debanking of millions of customers and reduce financial access to Americans. Among the examples of red flags cited by the latest order are accounts in the names of shell companies and use of specific platforms to disguise wage payments, and repetitive cash withdrawals. The use of Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITIN) should also be flagged when not accompanied by a Social Security number or a work visa. The White House also said Treasury and regulators should propose changes to the Bank Secrecy Act to make it easier to obtain information about clients, singling out documents issued by foreign consulates as risky. (Reporting by Nupur Anand and Tatiana Bautzer in New York and Chandni Shah in Bengaluru; Editing by Megan Davies, Mark Porter and Lincoln Feast.)