Summary: South Carolina Republican Party announces lawsuit plans SCGOP Chair Drew McKissick supports party membership control Attorney General Alan Wilson backs the GOP lawsuit The South Carolina Republican Party is planning to file a federal lawsuit to change the state's primary voting process and require voters to register to a political party. South Carolina voters do not have to register by political party, and are able to vote in either political party's primary. State Republican lawmakers have pushed for legislation to close the state's primary elections, but they have been unsuccessful in passing it. South Carolina Republican Party leadership held a press conference at the statehouse in Columbia on May 12 to announce the new lawsuit related to closed primaries and required partisan voter registration. SCGOP Chair Drew McKissick said that South Carolina political parties have the right under state law to define the terms of party membership and dictate who votes in their primaries. He said the law doesn't offer the tool to enforce that policy. "Many people who are not Republicans choose Republican nominees," McKissick said. "That's like allowing Carolina or Clemson fans to choose which players the other team puts on the field." U.S. Rep. Ralph Norman, R-District 5, is campaigning on closed primaries in his run for South Carolina governor. He said now is the time to institute closed primaries in South Carolina. "I'm glad to see the party moving forward with it, and I look forward to having our day in court," Norman said. Last fall, the Republican Party of Texas filed a federal lawsuit against the state to close its primaries. The Texas Republican Party argued that the First Amendment gives political parties the right to determine who votes in their election. Attorney General Alan Wilson offered his support to the South Carolina Republican Party as it takes up the lawsuit. The South Carolina Republican Party has not yet filed the suit, but McKissick said he expects the lawsuit to be filed shortly after the June 9 primary elections. Reporting by Bella Carpentier, Greenville News USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect

Summary: Cultural Landscape Foundation files lawsuit against renovation Renovation alleged to violate National Historic Preservation Act Department of the Interior oversees reflecting pool project A historic preservation group on May 11 filed a lawsuit seeking to halt President Donald Trump's ongoing renovation to the Lincoln Memorial's reflecting pool, the latest in a string of court challenges to the former real estate developer's efforts to remake Washington landmarks. The lawsuit, filed by the Cultural Landscape Foundation, alleged the renovation violates the National Historic Preservation Act, a law passed by Congress in 1996 that outlines procedures for changes to historic properties. The nonprofit seeks an emergency order halting the Trump administration's overhaul, which focuses on replacing the pool’s “gray stone” appearance with an industrial-strength coating in the color of a blue swimming pool. “The dark grey, achromatic basin was not incidental to the design," the lawsuit stated. "It was the design." The case was brought against the Department of the Interior, the executive agency overseeing the renovation, which said in a statement that Trump "has done more to make our nation's capital a shining beacon than any other president in the history of this country." Trump announced the project last month, saying "it’s going to be fantastic" and "really beautiful." As the project got underway, Trump’s motorcade took an unannounced trip to see the project up close. Trump has said he was motivated to oversee the renovation after a friend visiting from Germany criticized the condition of the reflecting pool. “He said, ‘It’s filthy, dirty. The water is disgusting-looking. It’s not representative of the country,’” Trump told reporters at a White House event last month. Some of the president’s other projects in Washington, including renovations to the city’s golf courses and construction of a White House ballroom, have also drawn legal challenges. A federal judge on March 31 blocked above-ground construction of Trump's ballroom, writing that "unless and until Congress blesses this project through statutory authorization, construction has to stop!" An appeals court later lifted the injunction, allowing construction of the ballroom to proceed  while litigation continues. (Reporting by Jan Wolfe in Washington; Editing by Matthew Lewis)

Summary: Andrew Left charged with securities fraud in July 2024 Alleged $16 million profit from misleading stock claims Trial to begin with jury selection in Los Angeles High-profile short seller Andrew Left's criminal trial will kick off in Los Angeles this week, spotlighting a contentious cohort of investors who have for years goaded public companies in the U.S. and overseas with allegations of fraud and mismanagement. U.S. authorities charged Left in July 2024, alleging he had manipulated the stock market and defrauded investors with misleading claims about his positions in multiple companies' shares, including Nvidia and Tesla, making at least $16 million in the process. Jury selection is expected to begin on Monday and the trial could last weeks. The Justice Department expects to provide a number of witnesses, including retail investors, court filings show. It is unclear if Left, who denies the allegations, will testify. Known for his sensational and colorful style, Left has, for more than a decade, been among the most prominent of a group of "short activists" who say they bet against public companies on the basis they are overvalued or engaging in outright fraud, drawing the ire of companies who have fought to curb their bets. Left, who runs Citron Research, exploited his influence through social media and cable news appearances to tout what he said were his trades, only to quickly and secretly close out his positions to profit from short-lived price movements, the Justice Department alleges. In return for compensation, Left also alerted hedge funds before publicizing his positions, allowing them to profit or mitigate losses, and concealed the coordination using fake invoices, according to prosecutors. Left, who did not respond to an email seeking comment, pleaded not guilty and could face 25 years in prison if convicted of securities fraud. In a court filing last week, his attorneys said he "acted in good faith in making honest public commentary" and that there was no law that required him to hold his positions for a length of time. AGGRESSIVE LEGAL THEORY? Some legal experts have argued the case is aggressive. Long criticized, short sellers have often defended themselves by leaning on First Amendment rights. Investors are also free to change their minds. "I think that theory standing alone would be a big swing by the DOJ," said Drew Bradylyons, founding partner at law firm Armstrong & Bradylyons and a former federal prosecutor. "For that reason, the government really went out of its way to allege other facts in the indictment that bolster their case. It does a good job of telling a longer story - that he knew he was making false statements to profit." Short sellers seek to profit off bets a stock will fall, although Left also took long positions. Among Left’s most high-profile short targets were the now-defunct China Evergrande, GameStop, Valeant Pharmaceuticals and Shopify. Proponents of short activists say they play a crucial role in the market in exposing wrongdoing, but critics have accused them of “short and distort” tactics that have unfairly damaged public companies. Left's trial is the culmination of a years-long probe by criminal prosecutors in Washington and Los Angeles, who began probing short sellers in 2019, Bloomberg, Reuters and others have reported. (Reporting by Michelle Price; Editing by Rod Nickel)