blocked

Oct. 15 (UPI) — A federal judge on Wednesday ordered the Trump administration to halt firings of workers amid the shutdown, according to two labor unions that brought the lawsuit against the federal government.

The Trump administration on Friday announced that it has begun laying off 4,100 federal workers as the federal purse has run dry with Congress since Oct. 1, failing to pass a stopgap funding bill to keep the government open.

On Sept. 30, ahead of the shutdown and amid Trump administration threats to institute mass firings if the government shuttered, the American Federation of Government Employees, with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of the layoffs.

Then on Oct. 4, the union filed a motion for a temporary restraining order.

On Wednesday, Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California sided with the unions, issuing the temporary restraining order they sought, stating that the reduction-in-force notices issued to the more than 4,000 federal employees were likely illegal, exceeded the Trump administration’s authority and were capricious.

In her scathing rebuke of the Trump administration, the appointee of President Bill Clinton described Trump’s mass firings amid a government shutdown as “unprecedented.”

In her order, she outlined how some employees could not even find out if they had been fired because the notices were sent to government email accounts, which they may not have access to because of the shutdown.

Those who do receive the notices are then unable to prepare for their terminations because human resources staff have been furloughed, she said, adding that in one case at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, human resources staff were brought back into the office to issue the layoff notices only to then be directed to lay themselves off.

She then chastised the Trump administration for carrying out the layoffs to punish the Democratic Party, which it blames for the shutdown.

“But this is precisely what President Trump has announced he is doing,” she said, pointing to a social media post from the president on the second day of the shutdown saying he had a meeting with Russell Vought, the White House budget chief, to determine which of the many “Democrat Agencies” to cut.

“I can’t believe the Radical Left Democrats gave me this unprecedented opportunity,” Trump wrote in the Oct. 2 post, which was quoted in full in Illston’s order.

Illston gave the administration two days to provide the court with more information on the issued notices.

“This decision affirms that these threatened mass firings are likely illegal and blocks layoff notices from going out,” Lee Saunders, president of AFSCME, said in a statement.

“Federal workers have already faced enough uncertainty from the administration’s relentless attacks on the important jobs they do to keep us safe and healthy.”

As the order was issued, Vought said that he expects thousands of federal workers to be fired in the coming days.

“Much of the reporting has been based on kind of court snapshots, which they have articulated as in the 4,000 number of people,” he said on The Charlie Kirk Show podcast. “But that’s just a snapshot, and I think it’ll get much higher. And we’re going to keep those RIFs rolling throughout the shutdown.”

Democrats said they will only support a stopgap bill that extends and restores Affordable Care Act premium tax credits, arguing that failing to do so would raise healthcare costs for some 20 million Americans.

Republicans — who control the House, Senate and the presidency — are seeking a so-called clean funding bill that includes no changes. They argue that the Democrats are fighting to provide undocumented migrants with taxpayer-funded healthcare, even though federal law does not permit them to receive Medicaid or ACA premium tax credits.

The parties continue to trade blame for the shutdown as it extends for more than two weeks, with some 750,000 federal workers furloughed.

GERRY Adams will be blocked from claiming taxpayer-funded compensation under changes to the law today.

The former Sinn Féin leader was on track to receive a government payout for his detention in the 1970s.

1

But a new Troubles Bill will now ban him and around 400 other largely republican former-detainees from receiving public cash.

It comes after an unexpected Supreme Court ruling in 2020 on historical detentions in Northern Ireland risked forcing ministers to splurge vast sums of money on individuals who claimed they were wrongfully detained during the Troubles.

The landmark case, brought by Adams, found his initial detention under an Interim Custody Order (ICO) was unlawful because a junior minister signed the order, not the Secretary of State.

This pivotal decision opened the floodgates for thousands of compensation claims for imprisonment and quashed convictions.
Later, Mr. Adams won a court battle in 2023 that ruled he was wrongly denied compensation after his convictions for trying to escape jail in the 1970s were quashed.

Today, Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn will introduce new legislation to Parliament to clarify that the relevant law always permitted junior ministers to sign the ICOs and, therefore, ensure no compensation will be paid.

A government source told The Sun: “The last government completely failed to successfully address this issue.

“Today we are making it clear in the law that detentions were legitimate and lawful.

“A result of this will be that those previously eligible will not get a single penny of taxpayers’ hard-earned cash.”

A SUPERSTAR Cheltenham Festival-winning horse has been blocked from a £175,000 race – amid a row over his handicap mark.

A Dream To Share won the Champion Bumper in 2023 and looked like being the sport’s next big name for legendary owner JP McManus.

2

2

But he failed to win a race in his next season over hurdles and only recently returned to the winner’s enclosure with a 1m7f victory on the Flat at Leopardstown in June.

Iconic owner McManus entered the horse, who is trained in Ireland by John Kiely, for the Cesarewitch handicap at Newmarket on October 11.

He was made 7-1 favourite for the 2m2f marathon on the Flat with BetVictor while other firms made him joint-favourite.

But, as things stand, the seven-year-old gelding with almost £200,000 in winnings is not allowed to run because the Irish handicapper has twice refused to give him a mark, according to the Nick Luck Daily podcast.

McManus has apparently appealed the decision with the Irish and British boards.

But the BHA have declined the appeal on the grounds of reciprocity with the Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board.

The most recent appeal to be turned away came last week.

It is believed those acting for McManus claimed enough time had passed between A Dream To Share’s most recent run on June 19 and now for a mark to be awarded.

Especially as several of the horses he beat, including runner-up Royal Hollow, had subsequently raced enough for the handicapper to be able to judge A Dream To Share accurately.

Interestingly, respected journalist Dave Yates said on the podcast that a mark of 104 had been ‘offered’ to A Dream To Share.

But still, nothing official has been granted meaning, as it stands, the favourite for the big race cannot run.

A Dream To Share won the hearts of punters at the 2023 Cheltenham Festival when schoolboy John Gleeson rode him to victory.

McManus bought the horse just a month before from Claire Gleeson, wife of ITV Racing pundit Brian, dad of John.

John said after the win: “Mr McManus was very generous. He said I would definitely keep the ride here today.

“There was no pressure from him. It’s brilliant. I’m very grateful.

“I’ve been going to John Kiely for as long as I can remember.

“I ride out this horse every day before I go to school so it is very special.”

FREE BETS – GET THE BEST SIGN UP DEALS AND RACING OFFERS

Commercial content notice: Taking one of the offers featured in this article may result in a payment to The Sun. You should be aware brands pay fees to appear in the highest placements on the page. 18+. T&Cs apply. gambleaware.org.

Remember to gamble responsibly

A responsible gambler is someone who:

• Establishes time and monetary limits before playing
• Only gambles with money they can afford to lose
• Never chases their losses
• Doesn’t gamble if they’re upset, angry or depressed
• Gamcare – www.gamcare.org.uk
• Gamble Aware – www.gambleaware.org

Find our detailed guide on responsible gambling practices here.

Among the missing are at least eight soldiers from a nearby army base.

Rescue workers are battling heavy rain and blocked roads after at least four people were killed and dozens reported missing after flash floods and landslides swept through parts of India’s northern Himalayan state of Uttarakhand.

The flood struck Dharali, a village in Uttarkashi district and a popular stop on the way to the Hindu pilgrimage town of Gangotri, after a sudden surge of muddy water mixed with debris engulfed the valley on Tuesday.

The flooding was triggered by intense monsoon rains, which continued to lash the region into Wednesday, complicating rescue efforts.

Al Jazeera understands that among the missing are at least eight soldiers from a nearby army base, while more than 190 people have been rescued.

Telephone lines remain damaged, and communication with the affected area is limited. Roads leading to the village have either collapsed or been blocked by large boulders, according to local official Prashant Arya.

“A large part of the village is engulfed in mud,” he told the news agency Reuters. “Some areas are covered up to 15 metres deep – enough to bury entire buildings.”

The Indian army said it is leading efforts to find approximately 50 people still unaccounted for. Mohsen Shahedi of the National Disaster Response Force said “the search for the missing is continuing”.

The army’s central command confirmed that “additional military columns” have been deployed, along with tracker dogs, drones and heavy earthmoving equipment. Military helicopters are delivering supplies, including medical aid, and evacuating those stranded.

Mobile and electricity towers were swept away by the floodwaters, forcing authorities to issue satellite phones to rescue teams.

Television footage showed torrents of dark, debris-filled water crashing through Dharali, sweeping away buildings and roads as residents fled for their lives. A video shared by the office of Uttarakhand’s chief minister showed parts of the village buried under mud.

Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami confirmed that about 130 people had been rescued by Tuesday night, and that helicopters were ready to deliver relief supplies to remote areas cut off by the flooding.

“People didn’t understand what was happening. The floodwaters hit them in 15 seconds,” Suman Semwal told The Indian Express, recounting how her father, watching from a neighbouring village upstream, saw the flood hit with a “thud” and “unimaginable magnitude”.

The Indian Meteorological Department said that water levels in all major rivers in Uttarakhand had risen above the danger mark. “Residents have been relocated to higher ground due to rising water levels caused by the incessant rains,” the Indian Army said in a statement.

Hydrologist Manish Shrestha said 270mm of rainfall recorded in 24 hours qualifies as an “extreme event”, particularly dangerous in mountainous regions where such rainfall has a “more concentrated” impact.

Shrestha, from the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development in Nepal, added that such intense rainfall events are becoming more frequent and could be linked to the climate crisis.

BOSTON — President Trump’s plan to end birthright citizenship for the children of people who are in the U.S. illegally will remain blocked as an order from one judge went into effect Friday and another seemed inclined to follow suit.

U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire had paused his own decision to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, but with no appeal filed in the last week his order went into effect.

“The judge’s order protects every single child whose citizenship was called into question by this illegal executive order,” said Cody Wofsy, the ACLU attorney representing children who would be affected by Trump’s restrictions. “The government has not appealed and has not sought emergency relief so this injunction is now in effect everywhere in the country.”

The Trump administration could still appeal or even ask that LaPlante’s order be narrowed, but the effort to end birthright citizenship for children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally or temporarily can’t take effect for now.

The Justice Department didn’t immediately return a message seeking comment.

Meanwhile, a judge in Boston heard arguments from more than a dozen states who say Trump’s birthright citizenship order is blatantly unconstitutional and threatens millions of dollars for essential services. The issue is expected to move quickly back to the nation’s highest court.

U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin was asked to consider either keeping in place the nationwide injunction he granted earlier or consider a request from the government either to narrow the scope of that order or stay it altogether. Sorokin, located in Boston, did not immediately rule but seemed to be receptive to arguments from states to keep the injunction in place.

Lawyers for the government had argued Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting a preliminary injunction, arguing it should be “tailored to the States’ purported financial injuries.”

Much of the hearing was focused on what a narrower ruling would look like. The plaintiffs raised concerns that some alternatives floated by the Trump administration — such as giving children in states affected by the birthright citizenship order Social Security numbers, but not citizenship — would be costly and unworkable.

They said such a system would burden these states with having to set up new administrative systems, sow confusion among the parents whose children are affected and possibly turn these states into magnets for families from other states looking to access the benefits.

Government lawyers didn’t seem tied to any one alternative, but told Sorokin the scope of his injunction should be limited. When pressed on how they would do that, a lawyer for the government, Eric Hamilton, would only commit to complying with whatever order was issued.

“If the court modifies the preliminary injunction or stays the preliminary injunction, it should be at most tailored to injuries plaintiffs are alleging, which are primary financial,” Hamilton said.

Sorokin pushed back, at one point using an analogy of someone who sued a neighbor over loud music. The defendant offers to build a wall to limit the noise but Sorokin wondered how they could ensure it met the zoning code and was something the defendant could afford.

“What you are telling me is we will do it but, in response to my question, you have no answer how you will do it,” Sorokin said.

LaPlante issued the ruling last week prohibiting Trump’s executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit, and a Maryland-based judge said this week that she would do the same if an appeals court signed off.

The justices ruled last month that lower courts generally can’t issue nationwide injunctions, but it didn’t rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional.

At the heart of the lawsuits is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. That decision found that Scott, an enslaved man, wasn’t a citizen despite having lived in a state where slavery was outlawed.

The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.

Casey writes for the Associated Press.

Social media platform says the Indian government ordered it last week to block 2,355 accounts, including two Reuters handles.

X says it is “deeply concerned about ongoing press censorship in India” after New Delhi ordered the social media platform to block more than 2,300 accounts, including two Reuters news agency handles.

X restored the Reuters News account in India on Sunday, a day after it said it was asked by the Indian government to suspend it, citing a legal demand.

Many other blocked accounts were also restored, with New Delhi denying its role in the takedown.

In a post on Tuesday, X, promoted by billionaire Elon Musk, said the Indian government on July 3 ordered it to block 2,355 accounts in India under Section 69A of the Information Technology (IT) Act.

“Non-compliance risked criminal liability. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology demanded immediate action – within one hour – without providing justification, and required the accounts to remain blocked until further notice,” X said.

“After public outcry, the government requested X to unblock @Reuters and @ReutersWorld.”

On July 3, 2025, the Indian government ordered X to block 2,355 accounts in India, including international news outlets like @Reuters and @ReutersWorld, under Section 69A of the IT Act. Non-compliance risked criminal liability. The Ministry of Electronics and Information…

— Global Government Affairs (@GlobalAffairs) July 8, 2025

According to a post on X post by the ANI news agency, Reuters’ partner in India, a spokesperson for India’s Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology said the government did not issue “any fresh blocking order” on July 3 and had “no intention to block any prominent international news channels”, including Reuters and Reuters World.

“The moment Reuters and Reuters World were blocked on X platform in India, immediately the government wrote to X to unblock them,” the post said. “The government continuously engaged and vigorously pursued with X from the late night of July 5, 2025.”

The spokesperson said X had “unnecessarily exploited technicalities involved around the process and didn’t unblock” the accounts.

India’s IT law, passed in 2000, allows designated government officials to demand the takedown of content from social media platforms they deem to violate local laws, including on the grounds of national security or if a post threatens public order.

X, formerly known as Twitter, has long been at odds with India’s government over content-removal requests. In March, the company sued the federal government over a new government website the company says expands takedown powers to “countless” government officials. The case is continuing.

India, the world’s biggest democracy, regularly ranks among the top five countries for the number of requests made by a government to remove social media content.

Rights groups say freedom of expression and free press is under threat in India since Hindu nationalist Prime Minister Narendra Modi took office in 2014.

New Delhi has regularly imposed blanket internet shutdowns during periods of unrest.

In April, the government launched a sweeping crackdown on social media, banning more than a dozen Pakistani YouTube channels for allegedly spreading “provocative” content following an attack in Indian-administered Kashmir. Many of those have been restored.

New Delhi has also imposed intermittent internet outages in the northeastern state of Manipur since 2023 in the wake of ethnic violence.

The government has justified internet and social media bans as ways to curb disinformation in a country where hundreds of millions have access to some of the cheapest mobile internet rates in the world.

In its post on Tuesday, X said it was exploring all legal options available over censorship, but added that it was “restricted by Indian law in its ability to bring legal challenges”.

“We urge affected users to pursue legal remedies through the courts,” it said.

July 2 (UPI) — A federal judge on Wednesday ordered the administration of President Donald Trump to stop implementing a proclamation to expel asylum seekers at the border that he had signed shortly after beginning his second term.

Trump had signed the proclamation, titled “Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion,” on January 20, his first day in office. It invoked emergency presidential powers to expel migrants before allowing them to apply for asylum. A coalition of immigrants and immigrant rights groups then sued the administration in February.

U.S. District Court Judge Randolph Moss has now granted the plaintiffs a partial summary judgment, finding that Trump’s proclamation and implementation guidance from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem violated the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.

In his proclamation, Trump had said that the screenings of asylum seekers under the INA — enacted by Congress — can be “wholly ineffective” but that the law grants the president “certain emergency tools” if he were to find that the entry of any class of immigrants would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.

“The court recognizes that the Executive Branch faces enormous challenges in preventing and deterring unlawful entry into the United States and in adjudicating the overwhelming backlog of asylum claims of those who have entered the country,” Moss wrote.

But he added that the Immigration and Nationality Act “provides the sole and exclusive means for removing people already present in the country.”

But Moss found that the INA “provides the sole and exclusive means for removing people already present in the country” and that the government lacked the statutory or constitutional authority to adopt an “alternative immigration system” to the one outlined by Congress.

He stayed his ruling for 14 days in anticipation of a likely appeal from the Trump administration, and deferred judgment on whether the government should grant relief to plaintiffs who are no longer in the United States and other aspects of the lawsuit.The judge’s ruling also did not include an injunction at this stage and ordered the parties to submit a joint status report proposing a briefing schedule on unresolved issues.

It comes after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week in the case of Trump v. CASA Inc., a landmark ruling that determined that lower courts generally lack authority to issue “nationwide” or “universal” injunctions unless they are essential to fully remedy the specific plaintiffs’ harms.

While an injunction has not yet been granted in this case, officials in the Trump administration have criticized Moss as a “rogue” judge seeking to “circumvent” the Supreme Court.

“To try to circumvent the Supreme Court ruling on nationwide injunctions a Marxist judge has declared that all potential future illegal aliens on foreign soil (e.g. a large portion of planet Earth) are part of a protected global ‘class’ entitled to admission into the United States,” Stephen Miller posted on social media.

Gene Hamilton, the former deputy White House counsel, called the judge’s decision “judicial insurrection,” while Attorney General Pamela Bondi said that the Justice Department would fight the “unconstitutional power grab.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge Friday blocked the Trump administration’s efforts to keep Harvard University from hosting international students, delivering the Ivy League school another victory as it challenges multiple government sanctions amid a battle with the White House.

The order from U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston preserves Harvard’s ability to host foreign students while the case is decided, but it falls short of resolving all of Harvard’s legal hurdles to hosting international students. Notably, Burroughs said the federal government still has authority to review Harvard’s ability to host international students through normal processes outlined in law.

Harvard sued the Department of Homeland Security in May after the agency abruptly withdrew the school’s certification to host foreign students and issue paperwork for their visas, skirting most of its usual procedures. The action would have forced Harvard’s roughly 7,000 international students — about a quarter of its total enrollment — to transfer or risk being in the U.S. illegally. New foreign students would have been barred from coming to Harvard.

The university said it was experiencing illegal retaliation for rejecting the White House’s demands to overhaul Harvard policies related to campus protests, admissions, hiring and more. Burroughs temporarily had halted the government’s action hours after Harvard sued.

Less than two weeks later, in early June, President Trump tried a new strategy. He issued a proclamation to block foreign students from entering the U.S. to attend Harvard, citing a different legal justification. Harvard challenged the move, saying the president was attempting an end run around the temporary court order. Burroughs temporarily blocked Trump’s proclamation as well. That emergency block remains in effect, and the judge did not address the proclamation in her order Friday.

“We expect the judge to issue a more enduring decision in the coming days,” Harvard said Friday in an email to international students. “Our Schools will continue to make contingency plans toward ensuring that our international students and scholars can pursue their academic work to the fullest extent possible, should there be a change to student visa eligibility or their ability to enroll at Harvard.”

Students in limbo

The stops and starts of the legal battle have unsettled current students and left others around the world waiting to find out whether they will be able to attend America’s oldest and wealthiest university.

The Trump administration’s efforts to stop Harvard from enrolling international students have created an environment of “profound fear, concern, and confusion,” the university said in a court filing. Countless international students have asked about transferring from the university, Harvard immigration services director Maureen Martin said.

Still, admissions consultants and students have indicated most current and prospective Harvard scholars are holding out hope they’ll be able to attend the university.

For one prospective graduate student, an admission to Harvard’s Graduate School of Education had rescued her educational dreams. Huang, who asked to be identified only by her surname for fear of being targeted, had seen her original doctoral offer at Vanderbilt University rescinded after federal cuts to research and programs related to diversity, equity and inclusion.

Harvard stepped in a few weeks later with a scholarship she couldn’t refuse. She rushed to schedule her visa interview in Beijing. More than a month after the appointment, despite court orders against the Trump administration’s policies, she still hasn’t heard back.

“Your personal effort and capability means nothing in this era,” Huang said in a social media post. “Why does it have to be so hard to go to school?”

An ongoing battle

Trump has been warring with Harvard for months after the university rejected a series of government demands meant to address conservative complaints that the school has become too liberal and has tolerated anti-Jewish harassment. Trump administration officials have cut more than $2.6 billion in research grants, ended federal contracts and threatened to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status.

On Friday, the president said in a post on social media that the administration has been working with Harvard to address “their largescale improprieties” and that a deal with Harvard could be announced within the next week. “They have acted extremely appropriately during these negotiations, and appear to be committed to doing what is right,” the post said.

The Trump administration first targeted Harvard’s international students in April. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem demanded that Harvard turn over a trove of records related to any dangerous or illegal activity by foreign students. Harvard says it complied, but Noem said the response fell short and on May 22 revoked Harvard’s certification in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program.

The sanction immediately put Harvard at a disadvantage as it competed for the world’s top students, the school said in its lawsuit, and it harmed Harvard’s reputation as a global research hub. “Without its international students, Harvard is not Harvard,” the lawsuit said.

The action would have upended some graduate schools that recruit heavily from abroad. Some schools overseas quickly offered invitations to Harvard’s students, including two universities in Hong Kong.

Harvard President Alan Garber previously said the university has made changes to combat antisemitism. But Harvard, he said, will not stray from its “core, legally-protected principles,” even after receiving federal ultimatums.

Binkley and Zhang write for the Associated Press.

While Wimbledon bosses have confidence in their security provisions, which are reviewed annually, the issue has come into sharper focus this year.

It is estimated that around 1,000 people work in the field of security to some extent across the Championships.

In addition to the screening around the ballot, there are also more checks and balances when it comes to those in the queue.

Anyone gaining entry to the Championships that way will have to be registered with Wimbledon – meaning they’ve had to provide personal information.

In the grounds, as well as police and military personnel, there are other discreet members of the security team.

A team of fixated threat specialists are hired in and can assist the player escort team.

There are also behavioural experts who are trained to spot people acting strangely.

There is significant CCTV coverage on site, and if there are concerns around a particular player then a specific CCTV sweep will be done of the seats near to the player and their box.

On court, protection officers are positioned near the players, with more on Centre Court and No.1 Court.

If something spontaneous happens on site, there are response teams walking round the grounds who can come and support staff.

Security teams are also in regular contact with the referees’ office to discuss issues like scheduling.