Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office has dropped its lawsuit against an El Paso physician accused of breaking the state’s new ban on gender-affirming care for minors, concluding that no laws were violated.
Dr. Hector Granados, a pediatric endocrinologist based in El Paso, was among the first doctors in the country sued under Senate Bill 14 (SB 14), the 2023 Texas law restricting most gender-affirming medical treatments for minors.
The state alleged that Granados had continued prescribing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones after the law took effect on September 1, 2023, and even falsified medical records to hide it.
Dr. Hector Granados denied the accusations from the start, maintaining that he had already stopped providing this form of care before the law was enacted.
Following a review of Granados’s complete medical records, the Attorney General’s office acknowledged that no violations occurred and dismissed the case. In its statement, the office noted that while Granados was cleared, other lawsuits against doctors remain active.
According to a statement from Paxton’s office, the cases against Dr. May Lau and Dr. M. Brett Cooper are still active, and the two physicians will “face justice for harming Texas children both physically and emotionally.” Attorneys representing the doctors did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Wednesday.
The Attorney General’s team also struck a combative tone, vowing that Paxton will continue to use the full weight of Texas law against what they described as left-wing medical professionals responsible for imposing so-called ‘gender’ ideology on minors.
Relieved by the dismissal, Granados criticized the way the case had been brought, pointing out that state officials never contacted him directly to verify the allegations before suing.
Civil rights groups, including the ACLU, argue that even short-lived cases like this one create a chilling effect, discouraging medical providers from offering care to transgender patients.
Texas’s SB 14 bans puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgical procedures for minors seeking gender transition. Physicians who were already treating patients when the law passed were ordered to taper them off these medications. Lawsuits challenging SB 14 are still moving through the courts, with critics arguing the measure violates both medical ethics and constitutional rights.
Dr. Hector Granados has been cleared of any wrongdoing, yet his case highlights the broader legal and political struggle over transgender health care in Texas. His dismissal offers some relief, but other physicians remain under investigation, and the fate of SB 14 is still being contested in the courts.
Ropes & Gray LLP is advising investors holding roughly $2.4 billion in convertible notes issued by Wolfspeed, Inc. (NYSE: WOLF), as the semiconductor company works its way through a prepackaged chapter 11 restructuring.
The court approved Wolfspeed’s Plan of Reorganization on September 8, clearing the way for the North Carolina-based company to exit bankruptcy in the coming weeks.
The plan will cut roughly 70% of Wolfspeed’s debt, strengthening its capital structure and supporting long-term growth. Convertible noteholders represented by Ropes & Gray will assume majority ownership and have committed to backstop $275 million in new second-lien convertible notes, providing the company with essential fresh capital during the restructuring.
In a statement, Wolfspeed CEO Robert Feurle described the confirmation as a turning point:
“We are pleased to reach this important milestone, which clears the path for us to complete our restructuring process in the coming weeks. We believe that strengthening our capital structure will help us to shape Wolfspeed into a leader in its industry, and we look forward to emerging with the financial flexibility to move swiftly on our strategic priorities and reinforce our leadership in silicon carbide."
"I would like to thank our talented team for their continued focus and hard work, our customers and vendors for their ongoing cooperation, and the lending group who supported our Plan of Reorganization.”
The restructuring has drawn in a broad roster of advisers. Wolfspeed is working with Latham & Watkins and Hunton Andrews Kurth as legal counsel, Perella Weinberg Partners as financial advisor, and FTI Consulting on restructuring. The convertible debtholders are advised by Ropes & Gray, with Ducera Partners as financial advisor.
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison and Moelis & Company represent the senior secured noteholders, while Renesas Electronics Corporation is advised by Kirkland & Ellis, PJT Partners, and BofA Securities.
Ropes & Gray’s team is led by business restructuring partners Ryan Preston Dahl and Matt Roose, supported by colleagues across finance, tax, M&A, employment, benefits, litigation, and enforcement practices.
Wolfspeed, Inc. is the global leader in silicon carbide semiconductors, supplying advanced materials and power devices for electric vehicles, renewable energy, and industrial applications. Headquartered in North Carolina, the company is a pure-play SiC pioneer driving the shift toward more efficient and sustainable power solutions.
Ropes & Gray is a global law firm providing comprehensive legal services to clients across a wide range of industries. With a reputation for excellence, the firm is known for its expertise in areas such as corporate law, private equity, M&A, intellectual property, litigation, regulatory matters, and finance.
Jones Day has welcomed David DeVito as of counsel in its Health Care & Life Sciences Practice, where he will be based in the Firm’s San Francisco office.
Mr. DeVito brings a unique mix of government and private practice experience, having spent the last seven years as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Northern District of California. He most recently served as Deputy Chief of the Civil Division and Chief of the Affirmative Civil Enforcement Unit (ACE).
In those roles, he guided the office’s civil enforcement portfolio, overseeing health care fraud cases, cybersecurity matters, and False Claims Act litigation.
Before his government service, David DeVito practiced law at leading firms, handling disputes ranging from health care fraud and bankruptcy to insurance coverage and broader commercial litigation.
“David has significant experience working across federal agencies on complex issues involving the health industry,” said Heather O’Shea, co-leader of Jones Day’s Health Care & Life Sciences Practice. “His track record of success as both a government attorney and lawyer in private practice will be an important asset to our clients. I am delighted to welcome him to Jones Day."
At Jones Day, DeVito joins a team that advises hospitals, academic medical centers, provider groups, private equity investors, and global pharmaceutical, biotech, and medical device companies. The practice also represents food and cosmetics businesses navigating regulatory and litigation challenges.
"David established himself as a highly respected AUSA here in San Francisco for his work on a wide range of civil litigation matters that are of utmost importance to health care and life sciences organizations," added Aaron Agenbroad, Partner-in-Charge of the San Francisco office.
"His work on some of the most significant health care cases of the past decade will be extremely valuable to our clients facing potential future government investigations and litigation. I am pleased to welcome him to Jones Day and to our team in San Francisco."
Mr. DeVito’s legal career began in the Bay Area, where he clerked for the Hon. Arthur S. Weissbrodt of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California. He earned his J.D. from the University of San Diego School of Law and his undergraduate degree from New York University.
"Jones Day is widely recognized as one of the elite law firms in the world for health care and life sciences organizations seeking legal counsel to manage commercial disputes and government investigations. I am honored to join this team that consists of some of the most talented lawyers in the health care industry and look forward to working with my new colleagues throughout the Firm." DeVito said.
Jones Day is a global law firm with more than 2,400 lawyers in 40 offices across five continents. Founded in Cleveland in 1893, the firm is known for its “One Firm Worldwide” approach, delivering seamless service to clients that include many of the Fortune 500 and Global 500. Its work spans litigation, transactions, regulatory matters, and government investigations, supported by a culture that emphasizes client focus, collaboration, and long-term relationships.
White & Case has advised EchoStar on its $17 billion spectrum sale to SpaceX, a deal blending $8.5 billion in cash with an equal amount in stock. SpaceX will also cover $2 billion in EchoStar’s interest payments through 2027.
The agreement includes a long-term partnership giving Boost Mobile users access to Starlink’s Direct to Cell service.
EchoStar’s president and CEO, Hamid Akhavan, framed the deal as the realization of a long-standing vision:
“For the past decade, we've acquired spectrum and facilitated worldwide 5G spectrum standards and devices, all with the foresight that direct-to-cell connectivity via satellite would change the way the world communicates."
"This transaction with SpaceX continues our legacy of putting the customer first as it allows for the combination of AWS-4 and H-block spectrum from EchoStar with the rocket launch and satellite capabilities from SpaceX to realize the direct-to-cell vision in a more innovative, economical and faster way for consumers worldwide."
SpaceX president and COO, Gwynne Shotwell, emphasized the global impact:
“We're so pleased to be doing this transaction with EchoStar as it will advance our mission to end mobile dead zones around the world."
White & Case, alongside Steptoe LLP, advised EchoStar, while Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP and HWG LLP represented SpaceX.
The White & Case team was led from New York by partners Michael Deyong, Jonathan Michels, Keith Hallam, and Daniel Dufner, with support across capital markets, finance, restructuring, tax, and M&A in the U.S. and London.
The firm has been a consistent adviser to EchoStar, including on its $23 billion spectrum sale to AT&T in 2025, a series of financings in 2024, and the DISH Network merger in 2023.
EchoStar Corporation (Nasdaq: SATS) is a global provider of communications solutions, combining satellite spectrum, broadband services, and 5G technologies. Headquartered in Englewood, Colorado, the company delivers connectivity to consumer, enterprise, government, and mobility clients worldwide. With more than four decades of innovation and $15.8 billion in annual revenue, EchoStar is recognized as a leading force in satellite and wireless integration.
White & Case LLP is a global law firm known for providing high-quality legal services to clients across a broad range of industries. Founded in 1901, the firm has grown to become one of the largest international law firms, with offices in over 40 locations worldwide. White & Case specializes in complex legal matters, including banking and finance, mergers and acquisitions, capital markets, dispute resolution, and regulatory compliance. The firm represents multinational corporations, governments, and financial institutions, offering expertise in cross-border transactions, international litigation, and arbitration. White & Case is renowned for its deep industry knowledge, innovative solutions, and commitment to delivering results for its clients.
On September 8, 2025, federal officials launched Operation Midway Blitz in Chicago, a high-profile immigration enforcement initiative targeting undocumented individuals with serious criminal records.
While federal officials framed the move as a matter of public safety, its rollout has already sparked sharp disagreement in Chicago’s legal and political circles.
The operation, named in honor of Katie Abraham, a young woman tragically killed in a drunk-driving crash involving an undocumented immigrant, targeted 11 individuals allegedly tied to violent crimes, gang activity, or repeat offenses.
While federal officials framed the crackdown as a “public safety measure,” reports quickly surfaced that arrests had begun even before the official announcement, sparking fears of broader sweeps.
Read the official DHS press release for further details on the operation’s stated objectives and scope.
Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson criticized the move, saying it bypassed local cooperation and undermined the city’s sanctuary policies. Both leaders accused federal officials of politicizing immigration enforcement to score national points while destabilizing local trust in law enforcement.
Senator Dick Durbin echoed their concerns, warning that operations like Midway Blitz risk alienating immigrant communities and could make Chicago less safe by discouraging residents from reporting crimes.
At the heart of the legal debate is federal supremacy versus local autonomy:
Can local sanctuary policies legally resist cooperation in targeted federal operations?
To what extent does the Tenth Amendment protect municipalities from being compelled to enforce federal immigration law?
Does selective targeting of individuals with criminal histories shield the operation from claims of discrimination or due process violations?
Once again, this isn't about fighting crime. That requires support and coordination — yet we've experienced nothing like that over the past several weeks.
Instead of taking steps to work with us on public safety, the Trump Administration's focused on scaring Illinoisians. https://t.co/LoFPM0E4PF
— Governor JB Pritzker (@GovPritzker) September 8, 2025
Protests have broken out across Chicago and its suburbs since the first arrests, with immigrant-rights groups warning that Midway Blitz is less about violent crime and more about sending a political message.
Civil rights lawyers note the way some arrests were carried out, in workplaces, at neighborhood corners and argue that the staging itself was meant to be seen. To them, it’s proof the operation is as much performance as policy.
Clashes like this aren’t new. During the Trump years, cities from Chicago to New York pushed back against ICE raids and the threat of funding cuts tied to sanctuary status.
The legal ground hasn’t settled: federal courts consistently affirm Washington’s power to enforce immigration law, but they also stop short of allowing the government to force local cooperation. That unresolved tension seems destined to resurface here.
Looking ahead, lawsuits are expected. Illinois could even respond with fresh legislation to limit how much it has to cooperate with federal authorities.
In the meantime, immigrant communities are bracing for tighter enforcement despite DHS insisting the scope is narrow. For lawyers, Midway Blitz is a live case study in federalism colliding with community policing.
Why is it called Operation Midway Blitz?
The name honors Katie Abraham, a young woman killed in a crash involving an undocumented immigrant, while also invoking Chicago’s Midway Airport.
Does Chicago have to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement?
No. Under the Tenth Amendment, the federal government cannot compel local law enforcement to carry out immigration duties, though it can operate independently.
What legal challenges could arise from Operation Midway Blitz?
Likely claims include Fourth Amendment violations (unlawful seizures), Fifth Amendment due process concerns, and challenges to the selective targeting of immigrant groups.
Have similar operations faced lawsuits in the past?
Yes. During the Trump administration, sanctuary jurisdictions frequently sued over ICE raids and federal funding threats, producing mixed court rulings.
How to Apply for an Australian Protection Visa, Step-by-Step
How Much Money Can You Get from a Personal Injury Lawsuit in 2025?
Whaleco Inc., doing business as Temu, has been ordered to pay a $2 million penalty after federal regulators accused the company of violating the INFORM Consumers Act, a law designed to strengthen transparency in online marketplaces.
The case, filed in federal court in Boston, represents one of the first major enforcement actions under the Act, which requires online platforms to disclose more information about high-volume third-party sellers.
According to the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission, Temu failed to post clear identifying details for some of its high-volume sellers. In many cases, addresses were missing or incomplete, making it difficult for customers to know who was really behind the products they were buying.
Investigators also found that Temu’s reporting tools weren’t always working as required. Under the law, shoppers must be able to file complaints both online and by phone if they suspect fraud. Regulators said Temu didn’t consistently offer those options.
“The Justice Department is committed to ensuring American consumers have information about third-party sellers online and mechanisms to report suspicious marketplace behavior.” Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate said in a statement.
The officials characterized the penalty as a clear warning to other fast-growing platforms: compliance is mandatory. In addition to the $2 million fine, Temu must revamp its compliance program by improving seller disclosures, repairing its reporting mechanisms, and submitting to federal oversight.
For consumers, these measures are intended to enhance transparency and provide more reliable tools for reporting potential fraud.
Temu’s rapid growth in the U.S. market, driven by low-cost goods shipped from overseas, has brought heightened regulatory scrutiny. Authorities emphasize that beyond price, compliance, transparency, and accountability are essential.
Whaleco Inc. is the U.S.-based operating company behind the fast-growing shopping app Temu, owned by Chinese e-commerce giant PDD Holdings. Headquartered in Boston, Whaleco manages Temu’s U.S. platform, which connects American consumers with low-cost goods sourced primarily from overseas sellers. The company has faced increased regulatory scrutiny as federal agencies enforce transparency, compliance, and consumer protection standards in the online marketplace sector.
Baker McKenzie Counselled Unilever on Dr. Squatch Acquisition
How Much Can You Get from a Personal Injury Lawsuit in 2025?
Latham & Watkins has advised global investment firm Permira on its acquisition of a minority stake in RightShip, the maritime digital platform recognized for advancing safety, sustainability, and supply chain due diligence.
The deal marks a key step in advancing RightShip’s technology-led growth and zero-harm mission. Closing is expected in the coming months, subject to approvals, with BHP, Cargill, and Rio Tinto retaining equal stakes.
Steen Lund, CEO of RightShip, commented:
“This investment is a strong endorsement of our strategy and impact. With Permira’s global scale and expertise in technology and M&A, and the continued support of our founding shareholders, we will accelerate investment in our products, data, AI, and people to grow RightShip’s relevance and reach – enhancing our mission of zero harm to people and the planet.”
Daniel Tan, Partner at Permira, added:
“RightShip plays a critical role in improving safety and transparency in the maritime industry. The Company’s services and data offerings come together on its AI-powered platform to bring deeper insights, better decision-making, and workflow automation to key stakeholders. Innovation thrives at RightShip – as product-first growth investors, we are delighted to partner with management and existing shareholders on this exciting journey.”
Rothschild & Co acted as financial advisor to RightShip and its shareholders.
Latham & Watkins cross-border team was led by Singapore corporate partner Amy Beckingham, with associates Elisabeth Su-Li Ong and Shi Cheng Chong. Additional advice was provided by Tokyo associate Benjamin Han, Hong Kong associate Aster Lin, and Seoul associate Alex Park on DTT matters, along with London partner Simon Skinner and associate Joshua Atkinson on tax.
RightShip is a global ESG-focused maritime digital platform, founded in 2001, that helps shipping companies improve safety, sustainability, and supply chain transparency. With its “Zero Harm” mission, RightShip provides due diligence, emissions scoring, and risk analytics to clients worldwide.
Permira is a global investment firm that focuses on multiplying the potential of both companies and people to build successful, growth-oriented businesses. Utilizing a thematic, value-based investment philosophy, they specialize in private equity and credit across four core sectors: technology, consumer, healthcare, and services, leveraging deep sector expertise and a collaborative partnership approach to drive long-term, sustainable value creation.
Latham & Watkins LLP is a leading global law firm known for its expertise in corporate, litigation, and transactional law. With over 2,000 attorneys in 14 countries, the firm advises clients across a wide range of industries, including technology, healthcare, finance, and energy. Founded in 1934, Latham & Watkins is renowned for its work with emerging companies, offering legal solutions for startups and growth-stage businesses. The firm’s Emerging Companies & Growth team helps navigate complex legal matters related to business formation, financing, and scaling, making it a trusted partner for innovative companies worldwide.
Priscilla Presley and Riley Keough are standing side by side against explosive claims in a $50 million lawsuit, but court filings reveal the family drama began long before the case ever reached Los Angeles.
In a private letter now made public, Riley admitted she tried to stop her mother, Lisa Marie Presley, from suing Priscilla in the weeks before her sudden death.
That painful family conflict has resurfaced in the amended lawsuit, even as grandmother and granddaughter present a united front, calling the allegations “deeply hurtful” and reaffirming their commitment to protecting the Presley legacy.
The legal battle began in August 2025, when former business partners Brigitte Kruse and Kevin Fialko filed a $50 million lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court accusing Priscilla Presley of fraud, breach of contract, and concealing past licensing agreements tied to her name and likeness.
How the $50 Million Case Began
The lawsuit was launched by Brigitte Kruse and Kevin Fialko, who say they once worked with Priscilla to expand her brand and protect her image. According to their filing, she misled them about past licensing deals, cut them out of agreements, and walked away with financial benefits that weren’t rightfully hers.
Their initial complaint accused her of fraud and breach of contract, but in early September the lawsuit was amended with far more personal allegations.
The revised filing points to a $494,000 lien on Graceland in 1977, suggesting it put added pressure on Elvis Presley in the months leading up to his death. Even more controversially, the plaintiffs claim Priscilla influenced decisions surrounding Lisa Marie’s final days in January 2023, supposedly to secure control over family assets.
Riley Keough’s Private Letter Comes to Light
As the case unfolded, a personal letter Riley Keough wrote to her grandmother surfaced in court records. It was never meant for public view, but now it has become part of the lawsuit.
Riley Keough (@rileykeough Instagram)
In the letter, Riley described how difficult it was to be pulled into legal matters within 24 hours of her mother’s death.
She said emails from attorneys began arriving before Lisa Marie was even laid to rest. Riley also revealed she had tried to convince her mother not to sue Priscilla weeks before her sudden passing, a disagreement that left her strained and heartbroken.
For fans who only see the family’s polished public appearances, Riley’s words were a rare and raw look at the weight of grief colliding with legal battles.
The Presley Women Present a United Front
Despite the painful allegations, Priscilla Presley and Riley Keough have responded together in a rare joint statement. They described the lawsuit’s claims as “deeply hurtful” and stressed that their family remains unified.
Both women emphasized their shared commitment to honoring Lisa Marie Presley’s memory and to preserving Elvis Presley’s legacy for future generations.
Riley Keough with her mother, Lisa Marie Presley and grandmother, Priscilla Presley (@rileykeough Instagram)
In 2023, there was public speculation of a rift between grandmother and granddaughter over Lisa Marie’s estate.
Their united response now signals that whatever private struggles they endured, they want to present a front of loyalty and solidarity, a reminder that, even in the shadow of legal battles, the Presley family legacy remains something they are determined to protect together.
Priscilla’s Fierce Defense
Priscilla’s longtime attorney, Marty Singer, has been outspoken in her defense. He labeled the new allegations “absurd and despicable,” comparing them to conspiracy theories about faked moon landings and JFK cover-ups.
To him, the lawsuit is nothing more than retaliation after Priscilla filed her own elder-abuse complaint against Kruse and Fialko last year.
The plaintiffs, however, insist they have contracts, emails, and financial records to back up their claims. That tug-of-war over documents and credibility is likely to define the court battle in the months ahead.
The lawsuit touches on estate law, inheritance disputes, and the way famous names are monetized long after death. Graceland itself, Elvis Presley’s most iconic asset, remains both a tourist destination and a business empire.
What does the lawsuit against Priscilla Presley claim?
It accuses her of fraud, financial manipulation of Elvis Presley, and hastening Lisa Marie Presley’s death to gain control of family assets.
What role does Riley Keough play in this case?
Riley is not suing her grandmother. Instead, her private letter was pulled into the filings, revealing the emotional toll the family has faced.
Have Priscilla and Riley reconciled?
Yes. While they once faced estate disputes after Lisa Marie’s passing, both women now stand together, calling the allegations false and damaging.
Could Priscilla Presley lose Graceland or licensing rights?
If the plaintiffs succeed, damages could exceed $50 million, potentially reshaping Priscilla’s financial future and impacting the Presley brand.
The political landscape in Japan is undergoing a significant shake-up with the resignation of Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba. While the public timing of his departure was directly linked to the conclusion of key tariff negotiations with the United States, a closer look reveals a deeper and more complex set of factors at play.
Shigeru Ishiba’s resignation was not merely a reaction to trade disputes; it was the culmination of mounting internal pressure and widespread public dissatisfaction.
For months, Prime Minister Ishiba had described the ongoing trade negotiations with the U.S., particularly concerning the crucial Japanese automobile sector, as a "national crisis."
His decision to step down came just after a major breakthrough: the U.S. issued an executive order reducing tariffs on Japanese cars from 25% to 15%. This timing was no coincidence.
In his resignation speech, Ishiba stated, “Having reached a milestone in the U.S. tariff negotiations, I decided now is the time to make way for a successor.” By waiting for this key moment, Ishiba was able to frame his departure as a responsible act of a leader who had fulfilled his primary duty.
He also noted that “I have consistently said that one should not cling to office, and that the right decision should be made at the appropriate time after fulfilling one's responsibilities.” In this sense, the tariff deal served as a strategic pretext, allowing him to leave on a high note rather than being forced out under a cloud of defeat.
The true source of pressure on Prime Minister Ishiba, however, was political, not economic. His Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) suffered a series of devastating losses in recent elections for both the lower and upper houses of the Diet.
Beyond the electoral numbers, a number of other factors contributed to Ishiba's political vulnerability:
The resignation of Shigeru Ishiba marks the end of a tumultuous period and the beginning of a new chapter of uncertainty in Japanese politics.
While the tariff resolution provided a convenient exit, the underlying reasons for his downfall, a loss of public confidence, a fractured party, and a weakened government - highlight the challenges that his successor will face.
The LDP's upcoming leadership election will be a pivotal moment for the party and the nation. The new prime minister's immediate priorities will be to bridge internal divisions, restore public confidence, and forge a path to effective governance in a minority parliament.
Getting arrested in Indiana or seeing a loved one go through it, can be a disorienting experience.
The process often brings up many questions and concerns about what will happen next, from potential jail time to the impact on your family.
This article is designed to provide you with a clear, straightforward overview of the legal process in Indiana, from common charges to the options available to you, helping you understand how to protect your future.
Every state has its own set of common charges, and in Indiana, the ones people most frequently encounter include:
Misdemeanor vs. Felony: What It Means in Indiana
In Indiana, crimes fall into two broad categories:
The process usually unfolds in several steps:
While you can go through the process without one, having a lawyer can make a huge difference. They can challenge evidence, negotiate better plea deals, or even get charges dismissed.
To protect your rights, consider talking to a criminal defense lawyer. If you cannot afford an attorney, you can find information on how to get a public defender from the official Indiana courts website.
If you cannot afford an attorney, you can request a public defender. These lawyers are dedicated and knowledgeable, but they often carry heavy caseloads, which means less time to focus on your individual situation.
Here’s a quick overview of potential penalties in Indiana:
Misdemeanors: Fines from $500–$5,000, jail from 60 days to 1 year.
Felonies: Prison from 6 months to 40 years, depending on the level.
Other Consequences: License suspension, probation, mandatory treatment programs, or a permanent criminal record.
Yes, Indiana has one of the more generous expungement laws in the country. Non-violent misdemeanors may be eligible for expungement after 5 years, while many felonies may be eligible after 8 years.
Certain serious crimes like sex offenses or violent crimes cannot be cleared.
Learn more about expungement eligibility from this detailed guide from the Indiana Judicial Branch.
If this is your first offense, you may have options like:
Pretrial Diversion Programs: Complete classes, pay restitution, and charges may be dismissed.
Conditional Discharge: For some drug offenses, completing treatment can prevent a conviction.
Probation instead of Jail: Judges often look at your history when deciding.
Attorney fees vary based on the complexity of the case:
Misdemeanors: $1,500–$5,000
Felonies: $5,000–$25,000+ depending on seriousness
Hourly Rates: $200–$400 per hour
Payment Options: Many lawyers offer free consultations and payment plans.
Don’t wait until your court date to figure things out, the earlier you have a lawyer, the better your options.
Find a lawyer for a free consultation in Indiana
How long does a misdemeanor stay on your record in Indiana?
Unless expunged, a misdemeanor will stay on your record for life. However, you can often apply for expungement after 5 years.
What happens if you miss a court date in Indiana?
Missing court usually leads to a bench warrant for your arrest and could add additional charges.
Can you go to jail for your first DUI in Indiana?
Yes, even a first-time OWI can carry jail time, fines, and a license suspension—but some cases may be eligible for diversion programs.
Do felonies ever go away in Indiana?
Some felonies can be expunged after 8 years, but serious violent or sexual crimes typically cannot.
