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)

Summary: US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit panel questions government censure of Senator Kelly Senator Kelly alleges retaliation violating First Amendment rights Defense secretary seeks sanctions after Kelly's public statements A U.S. federal appeals court at a hearing on May 7 appeared skeptical that the Trump administration‘s could legally punish Democratic U.S. Senator Mark Kelly over public remarks he made urging service members to refuse unlawful orders. Members of a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit expressed criticism of the government’s efforts to censure Kelly, a retired Navy captain and Arizona Democrat, over more than an hour of questioning. “These are people who serve their country. Many of them put their lives on the line,” Circuit Judge Florence Pan told a Justice Department lawyer. “You’re saying that they have to give up their retired status in order to say something that is a textbook example — taught at West Point and the Naval Academy — that you can disobey illegal orders?” Kelly spoke outside the courthouse in downtown Washington after the hearing. “This was a day in court not just for me, but for the First Amendment rights of millions of us,” Kelly said. The Pentagon and White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Kelly sued the Pentagon in January, alleging the move by Republican President Donald Trump’s administration to demote him and reduce his retirement pay was retaliatory and violated the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment protection of free speech. The Pentagon appealed after U.S. District Judge Richard Leon issued a preliminary injunction blocking the administration in February from pursuing its campaign to censure Kelly. U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth moved to sanction Kelly, a former astronaut, after Kelly took part in a November 2025 video amid rising criticism of the Trump administration’s deployment of the National Guard in U.S. cities and authorization of lethal strikes on suspected Latin American drug smuggling boats. In the clip, Kelly stated: “Our laws are clear: you can refuse illegal orders.” The government’s lawyer told the appeals court on Thursday that the Constitution does not protect speech by military officers who urge disobedience to lawful orders, even if the officer is retired. “It’s very clear that this is about a pattern and totality of conduct, not any one line or any one statement taken in isolation,” Justice Department lawyer John Bailey told the court. Retired officers remain part of the armed forces, are subject to recall to active duty and can influence service members, the Trump administration argued. Kelly’s lawyers countered that the Pentagon’s actions amounted to retaliation against protected political speech on matters of public concern. “The punishments imposed on Senator Kelly are textbook retaliation against disfavored speech,” Kelly’s lawyer, Benjamin Mizer, argued to the appeals court. “The censure letter says on its face that it’s targeting the Senator for his public statements.” (Reporting by Mike Scarcella; Editing by David Bario and Nick Zieminski)

Summary: Supreme Court denies Apple's request to pause contempt order 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld contempt ruling Apple must return to district court over app commission disputes The U.S. Supreme Court rejected on May 6 Apple’s request to temporarily block a judicial order that found the iPhone maker in violation of sweeping court-mandated changes to its lucrative App Store as part of an antitrust lawsuit by “Fortnite” maker Epic Games. Justice Elena Kagan, on behalf of the court, declined to pause a ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that deemed Apple in contempt in the Epic lawsuit contesting App Store fees. The Supreme Court’s action means Apple will return to U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California, to quarrel over what commission the company can lawfully charge for certain app-related transactions. Apple’s bid at the Supreme Court had been aimed at staving off returning to the trial court while it pursued its legal challenge before the justices. Epic Games Chief Executive Tim Sweeney said in a statement that “the Supreme Court has considered Apple’s delaying motion and found it unworthy.” Apple did not immediately provide comment. Apple and Epic have clashed for years over the rules governing Apple’s App Store. The contempt ruling and the scope of Apple’s court-ordered obligations are the latest issues in the dispute to reach the Supreme Court. Apple has said the 9th Circuit decision would affect how millions of app purchases are made. Epic Games won the contempt order last year as part of litigation it brought in 2020 seeking to loosen Apple’s control over transactions in applications that use the company’s iOS operating system and its restrictions on how apps are distributed to consumers. Apple mostly defeated Epic’s lawsuit, but was required in the judge’s 2021 injunction to let developers include links in their apps directing users to non-Apple payment methods. Apple allowed the links but adopted new restrictions, including a 27% commission on developers for purchases made on payment systems outside the App Store within seven days of clicking a link. Apple charges developers a 30% commission for purchases within the App Store. Epic argued that the new 27% commission flouted the earlier injunction. In 2025, the judge found Apple in civil contempt for violating the injunction. The 9th Circuit in December upheld the judge’s contempt finding but allowed Apple to make new arguments about what commission it should be allowed to charge for digital goods bought in apps distributed through the App Store but paid for using third-party payment systems. In the district court, Sweeney said, Apple must now disclose the costs involved in reviewing apps that use competing payment systems so developers can be billed accordingly. Apple has denied violating the judge’s order and has argued that the injunction should not be applied to millions of developers beyond Epic Games. “Regulators around the world are watching this case to determine what commission rate Apple may charge on covered purchases in huge markets outside the United States,” Apple told the Supreme Court in a filing. Epic has argued that Apple should not be allowed to sidestep the judge’s original injunction, saying this would “give Apple more time to continue unfairly profiting at the expense of consumers and app developers.” (Reporting by Mike Scarcella; Editing by David Bario and Will Dunham)