activist

MADISON, Wis. — The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected an attempt by a conservative activist to obtain guardianship records in an effort to find ineligible voters in the presidential battleground state.

The case has been wending its way through the courts for years and stems from attempts by conservatives to overturn President Biden’s victory in Wisconsin over President Trump in 2020.

Here’s what to know:

A conservative activist brought the case

The case tested the line between protecting personal privacy rights and ensuring that ineligible people can’t vote.

Former travel executive Ron Heuer and a group he leads, the Wisconsin Voter Alliance, brought the lawsuit in 2022 alleging that the number of ineligible voters doesn’t match the count on Wisconsin’s voter registration list. The lawsuit doesn’t specify how many people could be affected.

In Wisconsin, a guardianship order is granted by a court giving a person certain legal rights over another who is determined to be unable to make decisions about their life. A court has the power to remove the right to vote from a person under a guardianship order if the person is determined to be unable to understand “the objective of the election process.”

Heuer asked the state Supreme Court to rule that counties must release records filed when a judge determines that someone isn’t competent to vote so that those names can be compared to the voter registration list.

Heuer’s attorney, Erick Kaardal, argued that privacy concerns could be balanced with the public’s right to access government records by redacting identifying or sensitive information on the forms.

But the attorney for Walworth County said those seeking access to the records wanted to cross-check ineligible voters against the names of those registered. They can’t do that, attorney Sam Hall said during oral arguments, without releasing the person’s name and address.

Hall praised the ruling, saying it “protects the privacy of vulnerable individuals while preserving their dignity.”

Kaardal did not immediately return an email seeking comment.

The Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council, which advocates for public access to documents but did not take a position on this case, said the court’s decision was “narrowly tailored and should not have a huge impact.”

The council praised the court for clarifying the standard for deciding similar cases in the future, but that “it’s always disappointing when access to public information is curtailed.”

Signs supporting Judge Susan Crawford, and voting and election officials adorn the front yard of a home on South 16th Street on election day April 1, 2025, in Milwaukee.

(Kayla Wolf / Associated Press)

Liberal justices who control Wisconsin Supreme Court reject the case

In the 5-2 ruling on Tuesday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s liberal majority along with conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn ruled that the records are not public as the conservative activist had claimed.

The court took the case after two lower state appeals courts issued divergent rulings. One appeals court, based in Madison, denied access to the records while another appeals court, based in Waukesha, said in 2023 that the records should be made public.

It ordered Walworth County to release them with birth dates and case numbers redacted.

The Supreme Court overturned the appeals court ruling that the records should be made public.

State law is clear that the records being sought are not public and “the Alliance has no right to the records,” Justice Janet Protasiewicz wrote for the majority.

Conservative justices Annette Ziegler and Rebecca Bradley dissented, saying the court adopted “an overbroad and unworkable definition of what records pertain to a finding of incompetency” to include the forms that indicate a person has been found ineligible to vote.

Those forms are not pertinent to the finding of incompetency and are therefore subject to the open records law, Ziegler and Bradley wrote.

The case was one of several targeting the 2020 election

The case was an attempt by those who questioned the outcome of the 2020 presidential race to cast doubt on the integrity of elections in the presidential swing state. Heuer and the WVA filed lawsuits in 13 Wisconsin counties in 2022 seeking guardianship records.

Heuer and the WVA have pushed conspiracy theories about the 2020 election in a failed attempt to overturn Biden’s win in Wisconsin. Heuer was hired as an investigator in the discredited 2020 election probe led by former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman. The probe found no evidence of fraud or abuse that would have changed the election results.

The WVA also filed two unsuccessful lawsuits that sought to overturn Biden’s win in Wisconsin.

Trump won Wisconsin in 2024 after losing in 2020

Biden defeated Trump by nearly 21,000 votes in Wisconsin in 2020, a result that has withstood independent and partisan audits and reviews, as well as lawsuits and the recounts Trump requested. Trump won Wisconsin in 2024 by about 29,000 votes.

There are no pending lawsuits challenging the results of the 2024 election or calls to investigate the outcome.

Bauer writes for the Associated Press.

June 25 (Asia Today) — A South Korean civic leader proposed creating a satellite communications network modeled on SpaceX’s Starlink to provide outside information to people in North Korea.

Jang Man-soon, chairman of the Committee for Ten Million Separated Families and a co-chair of Citizens’ Solidarity for ONE KOREA, called the proposed system “Korea Link.”

“If we place a system similar to Starlink over North Korea, we could inform North Koreans who have access to approximately 8.5 million mobile phones about the realities and conditions in South Korea,” Jang said during an interview Thursday at the National Assembly in Seoul.

The figure was Jang’s estimate and could not be independently confirmed.

Jang said the network could communicate the importance of freedom to North Korean residents and correct historical accounts and information distorted by the North Korean government.

He said it could also help North Koreans develop pride in the goal of Korean unification.

Jang argued that a new means of communication is necessary because traditional methods of reaching North Koreans, including radio broadcasts and border loudspeakers, have become increasingly restricted.

He said North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s “two hostile states” policy is partly intended to isolate residents from outside information.

“North Korea is at a disadvantage in politics, economics, culture and military power, so the government is trying to block outside information from reaching its people,” Jang said.

Jang also discussed the declining prospects for families separated by the division of the Korean Peninsula and the 1950-53 Korean War.

“The wish of separated families is no longer simply to reunite with relatives,” he said. “It is to set foot in their hometowns.”

Many first-generation separated family members are now in their 90s, and few still have living parents in North Korea, he said.

“Their greatest wish is to visit their hometowns before they die,” Jang said.

He warned that public awareness of separated families is fading with each generation.

Jang called for expanded unification education for young people, opportunities to hear testimony from first-generation separated family members and educational visits to areas near the inter-Korean border.

“The reality is that only about half of the public now believes unification is necessary,” he said. “We are preparing various activities, including youth education, testimony from first-generation separated families and visits to border regions.”

Jang urged the South Korean government to participate in practical projects intended to support North Korean residents and preserve awareness of freedom and unification.

“If we view the people of North Korea as members of the same nation, I hope the government will participate in the practical plans we are pursuing,” he said.

“We must work together to establish a foundation that will allow future generations to understand the meaning of genuine freedom in the Republic of Korea.”

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260625010009002

His release comes after journalist Mousa al-Omar dropped a complaint over online criticism.

British Syrian activist Hassan Akkad has been released from a prison in Damascus after four days detention for alleged criticism of public figures.

Akkad was taken into custody from a cafe in the al-Maliki neighbourhood of Damascus on Wednesday at about 9:45pm local time (18:45 GMT), a statement by his organisation said on Friday.

Akkad is the founder of the “Give Us the Money That You Owe!” campaign, which tracks large financial commitments made by public figures during a donation drive to fund Syria’s reconstruction.

His detention followed a legal complaint filed by Syrian journalist and presenter Mousa al-Omar in relation to “Hassan’s social media activities and public comments” after Akkad criticised al-Omar for allegedly failing to deliver on his financial pledges during the donations campaign.

Public Prosecutor Judge Hossam Khattab confirmed last week that Akkad had been detained due to warrants issued against him for failing to present himself to the Cybercrime Control Division in relation to al-Omar’s complaint. Khattab also said other plaintiffs had filed cases against Akkad for slander and defamation.

The activist’s release on Sunday came after al-Omar told Al Jazeera that he had instructed his lawyer to withdraw the complaint against Akkad, and said that everything pledged to the campaign had been paid.

On Sunday, al-Omar again posted on X that he had withdrawn the complaint against Akkad.

“My legal representative dropped the right and the lawsuit against my brother Hassan this morning and pardoned him for the sake of Almighty God … I was saddened by what he brought upon himself, and I wish him success in his social media activities and I will always be a supporter of him,” he wrote in Arabic.

Akkad, who is also a filmmaker, was imprisoned twice by President Bashar al-Assad’s regime for documenting anti-government protests in 2011.

After fleeing Syria, he stayed in the Middle East before making an 87-day journey across Europe to reach the UK in September 2015.

Video of his gruelling trip was included in the documentary series, Exodus: Our Journey to Europe, which went on to win a British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTA) Award.

Syrian journalist Mousa al-Omar reportedly filed a complaint about Akkad’s social media comments prior to his arrest.

British Syrian activist Hassan Akkad has been detained by security forces in Damascus, in an alleged response to his online comments criticising a prominent journalist.

Akkad, founder of the Give Us the Money That You Owe! campaign, was taken into custody on Wednesday at about 9:45pm local time (18:45 GMT) while at a cafe in the capital’s al-Malki neighbourhood, the statement said.

His detention appears to be related to a legal complaint filed by Syrian journalist and presenter Mousa al-Omar in relation to “Hassan’s social media activities and public comments”, the campaign reported.

It added that he was summoned by the cybersecurity branch on June 4. Al Jazeera understands that Akkad is still detained.

“He later became aware that additional cases had also been filed against him, although he was not informed of the identities of the complainants,” the campaign said.

Al Jazeera reached out to the Syrian government regarding he case but has yet to receive a response regarding the activist’s arrest.
Public Prosecutor Judge Hossam Khattab confirmed that Akkad had been detained due to a search warrant being issued for him, but that the case against him had been dropped.

Al-Omar told Al Jazeera that he had instructed his lawyer to tell the police that he had dropped the case against Akkad and said he was “saddened” by what had happened.

“I am sorry for what happened to Hassan as a result of his mistakes; I followed the legal path under the cybercrime law… Everything I pledged, amounting to $700,000 in projects and cash, was paid in the donations,” he said.

Akkad’s campaign tracks financial commitments related to a public drive for donations to fund Syria’s reconstruction since the ouster of President Bashar al-Assad.

The activist reportedly criticised al-Omar on social media in recent weeks for allegedly failing to deliver on his financial pledges to the country’s rehabilitation efforts, pledges he claimed were worth thousands of dollars.

The campaign said after Akkad was summoned, he paused his online activities related to the case, to “allow the investigation and legal process to proceed”.

Akkad, a refugee and former English teacher in his late 30s, previously won BAFTA and International Emmy awards for documenting his journey from Turkiye to Europe after fleeing the Syrian civil war that began in 2011, during which he was arrested by the al-Assad’s authorities.

He eventually settled in the United Kingdom in 2015, returning to Syria after years in exile when al-Assad fled the country.

According to witness accounts cited in the statement, five plainclothes security officers entered the coffee shop where Akkad was meeting with several journalists.

Witnesses said the officers initially requested Akkad’s mobile phone before informing him that he was being arrested.

His lawyers said the arrest raises questions about whether authorities followed established legal procedures.

“No legal basis for the arrest … was presented at the time of his detention,” the statement said,

It added that since the allegations appear to be related to his online commentary, the arrest raises “broader concerns regarding the protection of freedom of expression”.

The statement further questioned the reported use of a cybersecurity law enacted during the rule of al-Assad, arguing that reliance on such legislation “appears inconsistent with the interim government’s commitments to expand protections for freedom of expression following the collapse of the previous regime”.

Palestinian activist Mahmoud Zaiter consoled Algerian fans after their team’s World Cup defeat to Argentina, praising Algeria’s support for Gaza’s orphans. He said the sponsorship of more than one thousand orphans represented a greater victory.

The Delhi High Court grants bail to Kashmiri rights activist Khurram Parvez, jailed in India for nearly five years.

New Delhi, India — A prominent Kashmiri human rights activist who has been imprisoned for nearly five years has won a partial legal victory after being granted bail in a “terror funding” case, but remains in jail over a second case.

The Delhi High Court granted Khurram Parvez, 49, bail in a November 2021 case on Wednesday, according to legal website LiveLaw. However, he will remain in jail in a separate case from March 2023.

Parvez was first arrested about five years ago by India’s main counterterrorism law enforcement bureau, the National Investigation Agency (NIA), over accusations of “terror funding”, recruitment of rebels in Indian-administered Kashmir and mobilising protesters during a civilian uprising. The second case is also related to alleged “terror funding”.

International rights groups have widely condemned Parvez’s arrest and continued imprisonment.

His lawyer, Swati Khanna, said she hoped Parvez could be freed from jail soon if there was a “positive result” in the second case.

“We are hoping, in a month or two, he could be out,” she told reporters.

The trial has not begun in either of the cases – an issue highlighted by international rights organisations, which say the process becomes the punishment for political prisoners in India who have to wait years behind bars before even facing trial.

The conviction rate in the counterterror law, the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), remains low at 5 percent nationally. It dips further, to less than 1 percent, when it comes to Indian-administered Kashmir.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu nationalist government has been criticised for persecuting dissent and criminalising expression in Kashmir, the country’s only Muslim-majority region.

“Khurram’s arrest proved to be the last nail in the coffin of any meaningful rights activism in Kashmir, one of the world’s most militarised zones,” said a political analyst based in Srinagar, Kashmir, who requested anonymity fearing repercussions from the authorities.

“This bail comes in a completely shallow, and nearly fictitious, trumped-up case after years in jail, and Khurram would still not walk free.”

Kashmir remains disputed between India, Pakistan, and China, which control parts of the region. Pakistan controls the northern and western portions – Azad Kashmir; and Gilgit and Baltistan. India controls the southern and southeastern parts – the Kashmir valley, including its biggest city, Srinagar; Jammu; and Ladakh. China controls the Aksai Chin area in the northeast.

The two neighbours have fought three major wars over Kashmir since the end of British colonial rule and their partition in 1947 led to the creation of Muslim-majority Pakistan and Hindu-majority India. Both countries continue to assert claims to the entire region of Kashmir.

NEW YORK — Former Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene after a federal appeals court on Friday declined to reconsider a decision that put the government a step closer to deporting him, the pro-Palestinian activist’s lawyers said.

Judges on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia voted 6-5 against having the court’s full complement of judges review the ruling. In January, a three-judge 3rd Circuit panel found that a federal judge in New Jersey who had sided with Khalil and ordered his release last year from immigration detention didn’t have jurisdiction to decide the matter.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which is involved in representing Khalil, said his lawyers will ask the 3rd Circuit for an order preventing the decision from taking effect — and barring Khalil from being detained or deported — while it asks the Supreme Court to take up the case.

An appeal to the high court is expected in the coming months, possibly in late summer.

“Today’s decision is not the final word, and we still strongly believe in our arguments going forward,” ACLU senior counsel Brett Max Kaufman said in a statement.

In its January ruling, the 3rd Circuit found that Khalil’s lawsuit challenging his detention and U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz’s subsequent rulings in the case were premature because federal law requires that such challenges first move through the separate immigration court system. That system is part of the Justice Department, not the judicial branch.

The decision didn’t decide the key issue in Khalil’s case: whether the Trump administration’s effort to throw Khalil out of the U.S. over his campus activism and criticism of Israel is unconstitutional.

Judge Cheryl Ann Krause, who had voted for the 3rd Circuit to review the decision, wrote in a dissent that the court was “abdicating our duty to meaningfully review Khalil’s constitutional claims. The Judicial Branch, she wrote, cannot fulfill its role as a check on the other branches of government, “if we write ourselves out of relevance and leave the Executive Branch to check itself.”

Khalil, 31, has also appealed to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Louisiana, where he was detained, after the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld his removal order.

Through his lawyers, Khalil argued that the immigration judge who issued the order failed to consider relevant evidence and wrongly upheld a charge that he had misrepresented information on his application for legal permanent resident status. That charge, Khalil’s lawyers said, was brought in retaliation for his protest activity.

The immigration judge suggested Khalil could be deported to Algeria, where he maintains citizenship through a distant relative, or Syria, where he was born in a refugee camp to a Palestinian family. Khalil’s lawyers have said he would face mortal danger if forced to return to either country.

An outspoken leader of the pro-Palestinian movement at Columbia, Khalil was arrested in March 2025. He then spent three months detained in a Louisiana immigration jail, missing the birth of his child.

Federal officials have accused Khalil of leading activities “aligned to Hamas,” though they have not presented evidence to support the claim and have not accused him of criminal conduct. They also accused Khalil of failing to disclose information on his green card application.

Khalil has dismissed the allegations as “baseless and ridiculous,” framing his arrest and detention as a “direct consequence of exercising my right to free speech as I advocated for a free Palestine and an end to the genocide in Gaza.”

The government justified the arrest under a seldom-used statute that allows for the expulsion of noncitizens whose beliefs are deemed to pose a threat to U.S. foreign policy interests. In June 2025, Farbiarz ruled that justification would likely be declared unconstitutional and ordered Khalil released.

President Trump’s administration appealed that ruling, arguing the deportation decision should fall to an immigration judge, rather than a federal court. The 3rd Circuit ruled 2-1 in the administration’s favor.

Judge Emil Bove, who was involved in investigating student protesters while a top Justice Department official, did not participate in the 3rd Circuit vote on whether to review the decision. He later issued an order denying a request by Khalil’s lawyers that he step aside from the matter, calling it moot.

Sisak writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Lindsay Whitehurst contributed to this report.

A group of Israeli settlers attacked Israeli rights activists as they were conducting a tour near illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. Israeli security forces arrested the activists.

Brazilian activist Thiago Ávila returned to São Paulo after being detained and deported from Israel, where he alleged he was tortured and witnessed abuse of Palestinian prisoners during his 10 days in custody.