With friends like Iowa Attorney General  Brenna Bird, does Paramount and David Ellison really need enemies?

In an op-ed penned for the conservative Daily Wire Tuesday, the Hawkeye State ally of Donald Trump is threatening to take California to the Supreme Court. Declaring that “California is once again trying to be the country’s regulator,” Bird wants to stop the antitrust lawsuit from the Golden State, New York and 10 other states against Paramount’s $111 billion purchase of Warner Brothers Discovery.

“Just like California should keep its hands off America’s bacon, California needs to understand that it doesn’t get to decide what Americans can choose to watch or stream,” the reelection seeking Bird states of the state and its AG Rob Bonta.

“If California believes a transaction that 68 regulators approved is nevertheless illegal, it is free to make that argument,” she notes, lamenting the $7 million a day ticking fee and more Paramount will have to start paying WBD shareholders starting October 1. “But it should make it in the one court with the authority to bind all of us, and it should make it now, before the bill for the delay comes due,” Bird claps, leaving out any reference to the Empire State’s Letitia James and other AG.

Yet, for all her rallying to the ParaBros cause, as well as some variations on what Bonta and gang are actually alleging in the March 2, 2027 trial starting case before a federal judge in Oakland, Bird doesn’t seem to have actually filed anything with SCOTUS.

It also seems hard to see how even if Iowa did take California to the conservative majority Supreme Court, how they could get a hearing before next spring or even October, with the John Roberts-led high court not back in session until October 5.

However, let’s sidestep Bird getting a perch on SCOTUS’ fast tracked interim relief docket (AKA the emergency docket or shadow docket) for a second, and look at a possible route under the provisions of Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. Even if the case fell within the “original jurisdiction” criteria and passed muster with the Justices, any ruling would likely still be drawn out — likely beyond the March 2027 trial already on the calendar. In the rare case SCOTUS picks up such a state to state battle, it would generally appoint a “special master’ to review the matter before getting directly on it.

All of which, like Paramount CEO Ellison accused Bonta in an August 4 NYT op-ed, makes Bird’s flag planter reek of politics.

Bird, who filed a brief in 2024 support of the former Apprentice host’s ultimately successful bid to gain significant immunity from prosecution for acts taken while POTUS, sidesteps most of the meat of the actual antitrust suit the 12 states and the WGA are pursuing. A suit that Bonta, in an August 10 guest column for Deadline, paints as “a straight up antitrust enforcement case. One that is very cut and dry.” Instead, Bird, while giving the DOJ the benefit of the doubt, moves to blast Bonta and colleagues as “more hostile to this pro-competition merger than Europe and China.”

The ‘To Save American Movies, I’m Taking California To The Supreme Court’ entitled piece in the Ben Shapiro-founded outlet insists a ParaBros combo is good for high streaming subscription paying Iowans, competition and the movie and TV businesses. “The merger could create a company to compete: an estimated $6 billion in savings to reinvest, and a public commitment to release at least 30 movies in theaters every year. More movies mean more entertainment — and more competition means lower prices,” Bird says.

There is no mention by Bird of the $80 billion debt load a ParaBros will carry, the ongoing blame game settlement talks (or lack thereof) skirmish, nor the $1.88 billion bond Paramount desires to offset the “extraordinary losses” the court challenge poses.

Bird also makes no mention of possible layoffs or other cuts from a Paramount and WBD melding. Cuts that every such M&A deal has seen. Cuts that the likes of the WGA SAG-AFTRA and theTeamsters warn of. Cut that reports in both late June and last week to the LA County Board of Supervisors warned could see thousands pink slipped, and cost the region billions in wage and hundreds of millions in tax revenue.

Touting a Hollywood that few who live here may recognize, the Iowa AG chooses echoes the findings of earlier this year from Trump’s DOJ approving the merger. To that, right now, she says “more movies are being made, and more workers are being hired.”

While seemingly concurrently stressing that a joint “Paramount+ and HBO Max together are smaller than Netflix, smaller than Disney and smaller than Amazon,” Bird also throws out there that “a successful Paramount-Warner Bros. merger would change that.” Later in the op-ed, the long time pol says: “That is the opposite of a monopoly problem.”

Singing the tunes of the growing MAGA chorus that seeks to turn Bonta into the new Nancy Pelosi punching bag, Bird asserts “California is just dreaming up something radical” to go to war with Trump and his admitted “good friends” David Ellison and his Oracle founding father Larry Ellison.

“California argues that the Department of Justice waved this through as a political favor to Paramount’s owners,” Bird wrote Tuesday in a smudging of what is actually in the July 13 filing by the colalition of blue states. Then someone should explain how the Department managed to get approval in China, Europe, Canada, and the other 60-plus jurisdictions. When regulators in 68 jurisdictions with different laws, different politics, and no stake whatsoever in American elections all reach the same conclusion, the outlier is not the consensus.”

Again, no filing seems to have occurred today so far at the Supreme Court from Iowa or Bird. Rob Bonta and Brenna Bird’s office do share the fact that neither of them responded to Deadline’s request for comment on the Iowa AG’s threat.

Jelly Roll weighed in on the strong reaction to his Monday monologue on “Jimmy Kimmel Live,” saying he couldn’t believe his jabs at Trump caused more trouble in late night than Rosie O’Donnell.

“I did a couple of jokes like that last night, in case y’all didn’t hear about it,” the country singer noted during Tuesday’s monologue after making a dig at the White House’s ballroom project. “And it’s because I’m hosting a damn late night show. That’s where you talk about the news and you make jokes.”

“But I guess apparently because I did it, it really messed with people’s heads. This was actually a headline, y’all,” Jelly Roll said, before referencing TheWrap’s Monday story, titled, “Jelly Roll Stuns ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live’ Audience With Multiple Jabs at Trump: ‘Didn’t See This Coming.’“

Jelly Roll confessed he was pretty surprised by the reaction, noting, “I have to say, as a former felon, drug dealer who has lost 300 lb., has tattoos all over his face and won three Grammys, this is the weirdest thing I’ve ever done to stun people.”

Though, he was particularly stunned to see that his monologue caused “more trouble” than Rosie O’Donnell’s guest hosting stint, given she’s Trump’s longtime nemesis.

“What a turn of events. Who would have guessed I’d get in more trouble with the president than Rosie O’Donnell?” he joked. “I love you, Rosie. Thanks for having my back today, baby.”

As Jelly Roll went on, he acknowledged that some viewers felt he didn’t “treat the president with reverence and dignity.”

“But I want to remind y’all that I go by the name Jelly Roll,” he said. “I don’t even treat myself with reverence and dignity. One day I looked in the mirror and said, ‘You, my friend, are a pastry.’”

“Frankly, I think most people were just surprised that I had any opinions at all,” he continued. “They see a guy that looks like me and assume the only opinion I have is whether I prefer my meth crystal or classic.”

Jelly Roll stood by his jokes, however, noting that a U.S. president should be able “to handle a few” jabs.

“They should also be able to handle gas prices, healthcare and the occasional international conflict, but beggars can’t be choosers,” he ripped. “Look y’all, I get it that some people are mad at me for goofing on Trump, but if you wanted me to make jokes about Kamala Harris, you should have voted for her.”

Before moving on to his next topic, Jelly Roll issued a statement to those threatening a boycott of his music.

“I just want to say with conviction, go right ahead ’cause I’m going to keep speaking my truth or my name isn’t Post Malone,” the singer, who often gets mistaken for the “Circles” rapper, said.

Watch Jelly Roll’s full monologue above.

“Jimmy Kimmel Live!” airs weeknights at 11:35 p.m. ET on ABC.

J.K. Rowling fired back after a critic commented, “It should have been you,” on her tribute to Dolly Parton, calling out the post for publicly “wishing death” on her.

Earlier on Tuesday, the “Harry Potter” author, whose anti-trans views have made her a controversial figure, took to X to pay tribute to the late country legend, who died at 80 following a brief battle with cancer. Like many in the industry, Rowling had nothing but praise for the singer, actress and philanthropist, writing, “Dolly Parton’s Imagination Library was the best contribution to child literacy ever made by a celebrity. Our paths crossed once, in the ’90s, backstage at a talk show, and I was completely tongue-tied and starstruck. RIP Dolly. You were a complete, irreplaceable one-off.”

However, given Parton’s prior status as a devoted advocate for the LGBTQ+ community, many on X took umbrage with Rowling’s message about the “9 to 5” star.

One scathing response appeared to catch Rowling’s attention, as she shared the comment with her followers: “It should have been you.”

“Top tips for wishing death on people in public,” the author wrote alongside a screenshot of the critic’s message. “Blocking the target is useless if you’ve signposted your real name and university in your bio.”

This wasn’t the only negative comment Rowling called out on X, however. For instance, one user wrote on Tuesday, “You know you and Dolly have nothing to agree upon, you f–king monster.” To which Rowling replied, “Well, joke’s on you, because neither of us want Jolene to take our man,” referencing Parton’s 1973 anthem.

Additionally, after a different X user tried to suggest that Parton was a supporter of Donald Trump, Rowling hit back with, “Oh, do f–k off. At a conservative estimate, Dolly Parton was 100,000x the person you are.”

Rowling was far from the only celebrity to pay tribute to Parton on Tuesday. The country superstar saw tributes from across industries, receiving heartfelt homages from the likes of Taylor Swift, Beyoncé, Jeff Bezos, Carol Burnett, Jane Fonda, Lily Tomlin, Eminem, Bill Clinton and Tim Cook.

Across the many tributes, Parton was remembered as a remarkable talent, generous spirit and dedicated friend.