blocks

Aug. 8 (UPI) — Former President Jair Bolsonaro will not be allowed to see his sons on Brazilian Father’s Day this Sunday, the country’s top court ruled.

Due to his health, Bolsonaro has been under house arrest in Brasilia since March while serving a 27-year sentence for a coup attempt.

Last month he was placed under a stricter regimen after he breached conditions of his house arrest.

The former president is not allowed to receive visits for 30 days, except by his medical and legal teams.

Bolsonaro’s defense attorneys on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court for special permission, calling it a “strictly humanitarian and family-related” visit for Father’s Day, which Brazil celebrates on the second Sunday in August.

“This is a unique date on the Brazilian calendar, and its observance, even for a brief period and under whatever conditions Your Honor may deem appropriate, would preserve family ties and an important aspect of the relationship between father and children,” the former president’s defense attorneys wrote to the Supreme Court, Gazeta do Povo reported.

But Brazil’s top court on Saturday denied Bolsonaro’s request to host sons Jair Renan, Carlos and Flavio, G1 reported. His fourth son, former Rep. Eduardo Bolsonaro, is living in the United States and was not included in the request.

Last month, Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes barred Bolsonaro from receiving any visits of a “political-electoral” nature until after Brazil’s general elections in October.

The restrictions came after Bolsonaro wrote a political letter in support of his son, Sen. Flavio Bolsonaro, despite his sentence barring him from participating in national politics.

The younger Bolsonaro, who disseminated the letter on social media, is running against President Luis Inacio Lula da Silva.

“They took away his freedom,” Flavio Bolsonaro wrote on X. “Now they want to take away even a father’s right to hug his children.”

Bolsonaro’s defense lawyers argued in court he was unaware that his son would divulge his writing on social media.

But the court disagreed.

“The letter — written and personally signed by Jair Messias Bolsonaro — was addressed ‘to the Brazilian people,’ demonstrating that it was not of a private nature but rather intended for political and electoral purposes, with dissemination to the general public, using Flavio Nantes Bolsonaro as an intermediary, or in his own words, as his ‘spokesperson,'” Moraes wrote in his decision, G1 reported.

“The text of the ‘Letter to the Brazilian People,’ therefore, clearly shows that Jair Messias Bolsonaro intended to communicate with his political supporters through his son’s social media accounts,” the justice added.

As a result of the restriction, he was also denied a visit by Argentinian President Javier Milei, who in July visited the country in support of Flavio Bolsonaro’s candidature.

Peter Wiles and his wife Rogelyn Caresosa had been planning to go on a holiday to Cappadocia in Turkey, but their holiday ended at Manchester Airport where Turkish Airlines stopped them from boarding

A man was left ‘questioning his sanity’ after he and his wife missed a Turkish Airlines flight.

Peter Wiles and Rogelyn Caresosa had been looking forward to a romantic getaway in Cappadocia, a region of Turkey famous for its colourful hot air balloons and multi-level subterranean cities carved out of soft volcanic ash stone over thousands of years.

The couple married in 2024, paving the way for Rogelyn to move to the UK on a spouse visa and live with her factory worker husband. Having saved up the cash for the May 2025 getaway, Peter splashed out £973.30 for flights from Manchester Airport.

Both Peter and Rogelyn were distraught when their dream getaway ended at the airport.

“My wife was devastated, we had to get a taxi home as it was late on a Sunday and the trains had finished,” Peter told the Mirror. “This whole debacle has honestly had me questioning my sanity at times!”

Peter had booked and paid for two Turkish Airlines return flights to Turkey for himself and his Filipino wife, as part of a single booking in his name, using his Tesco Bank credit card.

They encountered a small difficulty in booking. Because Rogelyn holds a UK spouse visa, her old Biometric Residence Permit (BRP) card had technically expired at the end of 2024 under the UK’s switch to digital eVisas, although her actual immigration status remains valid until 2027.

Before applying for Turkey’s eVisa, Rogelyn called the Turkish Consulate, which advised her to use her BRP number rather than her UK “share code” as the “additional visa number” on the form.

However, once at Manchester Airport, a Turkish Airlines gate agent rejected this, insisting the share code should have been used instead. This is despite the eVisa printout they presented, which stated that “eVisas of other countries are NOT accepted as supporting documents.”

Ultimately, Rogelyn was denied boarding and so the couple were left at the airport, their plane leaving without them.

Peter has now been left fighting to get his money back, attempting to claim it back via his bank and Turkish Airlines. So far, he has been unsuccessful. He claims that Turkish Airlines refused to give a clear written explanation for the refusal, at various points citing a vague “issue” with the visa, then claiming the couple were a “no show”.

Following a request from Peter, Tesco Bank raised a chargeback, which the airline contested twice, before Tesco Bank ultimately dropped it. The bank accepted the airline’s “flight operated as scheduled” explanation, despite that not addressing why boarding was denied.

Peter would go on to report the incident to the Ombudsman, but she ruled against him on technical grounds: no valid Debtor-Creditor-Supplier agreement existed for the wife’s ticket because she, not Peter, was the one denied boarding.

The lengthy and frustrating process has left Peter doubting himself. “I’ve developed a complex about being misunderstood and feel I have to explain everything in detail,” he added.

A Tesco Bank spokesperson said: “We were sorry to hear about the experience Mr Wiles had when attempting to travel with his wife. After careful consideration, we concluded that his case didn’t meet the criteria for a successful Section 75 claim. He referred his claim to the Financial Ombudsman Service, which upheld our decision.”

Turkish Airlines did not respond to a request for comment.

The order prevents thousands from El Salvador, Sudan and Ukraine from losing work authorisation while lawsuit proceeds.

A United States federal judge has temporarily blocked the administration of US President Donald Trump from revoking work permits for tens of thousands of asylum seekers and immigrants with Temporary Protected Status (TPS), preventing a policy that was set to take effect as early as Wednesday.

On Tuesday, US District Judge Nathaniel Gorton sided with immigrant rights groups and labour unions challenging a series of new US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policies that implement immigration restrictions passed by Congress last year.

In the five-page order, he wrote, “The consequences faced by plaintiffs are potentially severe.” The order will stay in place while he considers whether to issue a longer-term injunction, with a decision expected by August 5.

The lawsuit, filed earlier this month by a coalition of organisations represented by the legal group Democracy Forward, challenged a number of recent USCIS policy changes. Those include a new policy allowing the agency to reject pending asylum applications and revoke work permits if applicants don’t pay a newly created annual asylum fee, as well as its decision to scrap a decades-old rule requiring initial asylum work permit applications to be processed within 30 days. The lawsuit argued USCIS made the changes without public input, as required by law.

It also challenged the retroactive application of the new rules to people from El Salvador, Sudan and Ukraine, who are still protected by TPS, which allows people from countries affected by war, natural disasters or other major crises to live and work legally in the US until it is considered safe for them to return home.

“This decision protects thousands of asylum seekers and TPS holders from immediate and irreparable harm while this case moves forward,” said Democracy Forward president, Skye Perryman, in a statement. “Without this relief, families who have followed the law and relied on longstanding humanitarian protections faced the sudden loss of their employment authorisation and ability to support themselves through no fault of their own.”

The ruling means thousands of TPS holders from El Salvador, Sudan and Ukraine will be able to keep working while the legal challenge moves forward.

While the judge didn’t block the collection of the asylum fee on Tuesday, he did temporarily block the consequences of not paying it, including having an individual’s application rejected or work permit terminated.

The controversial provisions were introduced as part of Trump’s signature tax and spending law, the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, passed by the Republican-controlled Congress in July 2025.

The Trump administration has made ending TPS protections a central part of its immigration agenda, moving to take the status away from people from more than a dozen countries. Last month, the US Supreme Court allowed the administration to end protections for thousands of Haitian and Syrian immigrants.

USCIS did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Reuters news agency.

A federal judge has halted California’s groundbreaking “Truth in Recycling” law, which aims to reduce consumer confusion about which packaging can be recycled.

California’s recyclable packaging law prohibits manufacturers from using a “chasing arrows” recycling symbol on products or materials unless they are actually being recycled in a meaningful way, which the law quantifies. The bill was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2021 and was to go into effect on Oct. 4.

A coalition of farming, forestry, restaurant and packaging organizations sued the state in March, arguing the law violates their right to free speech. They argued that Senate Bill 343 operates as “government-imposed censorship.”

Judge William Hayes agreed that their challenge has merit, and on Tuesday ordered California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, the defendant in the case, to pause enforcement of the law “until further order of the Court.”

The industry trade groups, which include the Dairy Institute of California, the Flexible Packaging Assn. and the Western Growers Assn., applauded the decision.

The coalition “will continue to press the case that California can strengthen recycling without censoring truthful information on packaging and without adding unnecessary and significant costs for California families and businesses,” Californians for Affordable Packaging said in a statement.

The “ruling is a significant win, not just for our members, but for every business that wants to give consumers accurate information about the products they buy,” said Julie Landry, vice president of government affairs at the American Forest & Paper Assn. “The Court recognized what we’ve said from the beginning: California cannot fix consumer confusion by restricting truthful speech.”

Advocates of reducing the use of plastic disagreed.

“The court got it wrong, and I’m confident that the state will ultimately prevail,” said Nick Lapis, director of advocacy for Californians Against Waste. “SB 343 does not violate the First Amendment; it requires companies to tell the truth when they make recyclability claims. Suggesting that the First Amendment protects misleading environmental marketing is inconsistent with the basic principles of consumer protection that states like California have implemented for decades.”

In January, CalRecycle, the state’s waste agency, issued a report showing that less than 10% of most single-use plastic materials in the state were being recycled.

Even yogurt containers and margarine tubs — made of ubiquitous polypropylene, or #5 plastic — are being recycled at a rate of only 2% in the state, the report said. Only 5% of colored shampoo and detergent bottles, made from polyethylene, or #1 plastic, are getting recycled.

Reports on abysmally low rates of recycling for milk cartons and polystyrene had been widely shared even before that.

Plastic materials that can’t be recycled are typically sent to landfills or sometimes illegally shipped overseas, where they are burned or end up in landfills, rivers and waterways.

A report by the Natural Resources Defense Council shows that nationwide, taxpayers, governments and businesses are spending between $9.8 billion and $13.3 billion per year cleaning up plastic litter, and almost $3 billion is spent by local governments on landfilling plastic.

According to one state analysis, 2.9 million tons of single-use plastic and 171.4 billion single-use plastic components were sold, offered for sale or distributed in California in 2023.

Single-use plastics, and plastic waste more broadly, are considered a growing environmental and health problem. In recent decades, plastic waste has overwhelmed waterways and oceans, sickening marine life and threatening human health.

“It is a terrible decision which denies consumers basic information needed to make informed choices,” said Judith Enck, former Environmental Protection Agency regional administrator and president of the nonprofit Beyond Plastics. “Given the long history of the plastics industry deceiving the public about plastics recycling, this is an especially bad outcome. It is a reminder that the plastics industry has enough money to fight even the most modest policy designed to protect people and the planet.”

July 13 (UPI) — Outgoing Colombian President Gustavo Petro has barred President-elect Abelardo De la Espriella from holding his inauguration at a military base, triggering an unprecedented institutional dispute that has clouded the transfer of power and underscored the country’s deep political polarization.

Citing his authority as commander-in-chief of the armed forces until Aug. 7, the leftist president blocked De la Espriella’s plan to take the oath of office before military personnel.

The incoming government had sought to use the ceremony to signal a sharp break with the outgoing administration’s security policies.

“Military and police barracks are under my command until the new president is sworn in and, therefore, until that moment I am the supreme commander of the military forces,” Petro wrote on X.

In the post, Petro reiterated his claim that the incoming government “was not elected by a majority of the people,” adding that Colombia’s next president must take office during a full session of Congress “under the laws of the republic and the Constitution.”

Petro’s decision comes amid an institutional crisis and a fractured transition following the June 21 runoff election. After De la Espriella’s victory, Petro alleged electoral fraud and refused to openly recognize the legitimacy of the president-elect.

In response, De la Espriella unilaterally suspended the administrative transition process, accusing Petro of planning a coup to remain in power. International organizations and electoral authorities have validated the election, but the official transfer of information remains frozen.

De la Espriella campaigned on a “tough-on-crime” platform and promised to restore “honor and dignity” to the armed forces, arguing that they had been mistreated and demoralized by the outgoing leftist government’s policies. His request to take the oath of office at a military installation was intended as a symbolic tribute to the troops.

The confrontation highlights Colombia’s sharp political shift after four years under the first leftist government in the country’s history.

According to local media, De la Espriella’s push to hold the congressional session outside the National Capitol also tests his strength against the legislative branch.

Because his party will not hold an absolute majority in the new Congress, which takes office July 20, Petro’s veto highlights the early institutional challenges and opposition the incoming government is likely to face.

July 1 (UPI) — A federal judge has temporarily blocked the Defense Department from enforcing its escort policy, at least for reporters with The New York Times, dealing another blow to the Trump administration’s attempt to restrict media access at the Pentagon.

It was not entirely clear whether the order applied to all credentialed reporters or just those associated with The New York Times.

U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman in D.C. issued his preliminary injunction Tuesday, finding the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claims that the escort policy was retaliatory and infringed on their First Amendment rights.

“This Court has spoken at several points about the critical importance of protecting the freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment, and that evergreen principle bears repeating: ‘Those who drafted the First Amendment believed that the nation’s security requires a free press and an informed people and that such security is endangered by government suppression of political speech,'” Friedman said in his Tuesday opinion, quoting from one of his previous opinions in the case.

“‘That principle has preserved the nation’s security for almost 250 years.'”

The ruling comes in a protracted case that began when the Defense Department announced a new policy in October permitting the revocation of Pentagon credentials for collecting and reporting information it deemed unauthorized.

After Friedman ruled in March that the policy was unconstitutional, the Department of Defense came back with a new policy that, among other restrictions, mandated reporters be escorted by Defense Department personnel at all times within the Pentagon.

The Trump administration has argued that the new requirements are for national security purposes. By limiting access and requiring escorts, the Department of Defense said it could prevent the gathering and public disclosure of what it calls classified national security information and controlled unclassified information.

The Times then challenged the revised policy, with the court again siding against the Defense Department, which appealed, seeking only a limited stay pending appeal to allow the implementation of only the escort requirement.

In late April, a divided three-judge appeals panel granted the Trump administration’s emergency request, finding that it was likely to succeed in showing that the escort requirement was not within the scope of the lower court’s original order, without weighing the merits of the case. The Times then filed a new, second lawsuit challenging the Pentagon’s escort policy.

The Pentagon on Wednesday said it “strongly disagrees” with the court and will appeal the decision.

In a statement, Sean Parnell, chief Pentagon spokesperson, argued that the removal of the escort policy will make it easier for “sensitive and classified information to reach our adversaries.”

“Unescorted access to the Pentagon allowed journalists to observe activity patterns and develop relationships that contributed to repeated unauthorized disclosures of operational plans and intelligence,” Parnell said.

“The court’s order effectively restores that risky environment at a time when protecting our military’s secrets is more critical than ever.”

The Times argued that the policy was not only a restriction on its reporters’ First Amendment rights, but also retaliatory, an argument that Friedman said would likely succeed in court, pointing to numerous instances of Trump administration officials, including President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, insulting the newspaper and other news organizations.

UPI has contacted The Times for comment.

The Freedom of the Press Foundation celebrated the ruling online, while calling for punishment if the Trump administration tries to find another workaround to enforce its media-restriction policies.

“The DoD can’t be allowed to punish journalism or evade court orders without consequences,” it said in an online statement.

“If the Pentagon keeps trying to avoid this ruling, the court should respond with sanctions or contempt.”

June 29 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that Congress’ restriction of the president from firing independent agency employees without cause violates the separation of powers.

The court upheld President Donald Trump‘s firing of Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission, overturning 90 years of precedence. The ruling came down along ideological lines with the conservative majority upholding Slaughter’s firing in a 6-3 decision.

Writing the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts said Congress’ “for cause” removal protections, meant to shield independent agencies from political influence, violate the separation of powers.

“What text, history, and structure settle, our precedent confirms — the president may remove his subordinates at will,” Roberts wrote.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the minority opinion that the decision has given the president “far greater power than ever before.”

“It is a power, however, that neither the People, nor Congress, nor the Constitution bestowed upon him. In granting the President this unbridled authority, the Court upends its precedent, misconstrues our history, and sheds any pretense of judicial modesty. I respectfully dissent.”

The court’s decision upends the precedent set in 1935 in the case Humphrey’s Executor vs. United States. The high court in that case ordered that Congress could restrict the president from firing members of the FTC without cause.

“Although it is up to the Senate to decide whether to confirm those with whom the President would prefer to work with, neither Congress nor the courts may saddle him with those with whom he cannot work,” Roberts wrote. “Subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people.”

While the high court allowed Trump to fire Slaughter, it rejected his bid to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve for the moment.

Trump attempted to pause a federal court ruling that prevented him from firing Cook last year. A lawsuit was filed challenging the attempt. In a 5-4 ruling Monday, the Supreme Court rejected the attempt by Trump.

Roberts penned the majority opinion in this case as well, joining the three liberal justices and conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

“Not only the fact of independence but also the appearance of independence is key to the Federal Reserve’s design,” Roberts wrote.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court sided with the maker of the Roundup weedkiller Thursday in a ruling expected to block thousands of lawsuits alleging it failed to warn people the product could cause cancer.

The case came before the justices after a tidal wave of litigation that included some multibillion-dollar verdicts against the global agrochemical manufacturer Bayer, which acquired Roundup when it bought its original manufacturer Monsanto in 2018.

The decision is a victory for the Trump administration, but one that could be tricky politically since allies in the Make America Healthy Again movement want to rein in pesticide use.

The high court, in a 7-2 ruling, found that the company can’t be sued in state courts because federal regulations have found a cancer link unlikely and do not require a warning label.

The decision “is good for science, farmers, and industries that depend on regulatory clarity for innovation,” Bayer said in a statement. “It should help significantly contain the Roundup litigation after nearly a decade of legal battles.”

Though Bayer said the ruling should result in the dismissal of pending lawsuits containing failure-to-warn allegations, the company said it plans to proceed with a proposed $7.25 billion class-action settlement intended to resolve many of the remaining claims.

Lawyers for some residents pursuing Roundup litigation criticized the court’s decision.

“This Supreme Court ruling wrongly slams the courthouse door on Americans sickened by pesticides,” said attorney Christopher Seeger, who is proposed as a claimants’ representative in the settlement. But he said a settlement still would allow some people to receive compensation.

The case before the Supreme Court was filed by Missouri resident John Durnell. He developed a cancer called non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after more than 20 years of serving as the neighborhood association’s “spray guy,” using Roundup on parks in his historic St. Louis community.

A jury agreed that the company failed to warn him about possible cancer dangers and awarded him $1.25 million. It’s one of thousands of similar cases, including some multibillion-dollar damage awards.

There’s still fierce debate about cancer and Roundup’s key ingredient, glyphosate. The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified the chemical as “probably carcinogenic” in 2015. The Environmental Protection Agency has determined that it’s not likely to cause cancer in humans when used as directed.

The agency approved a label without a cancer warning, and Bayer argues that it’s required to follow those federal standards — not the state laws that Durnell and others have sued under. The ruling still could allow other suits alleging problems with the way the product was designed, his attorney Ashley Keller has said.

Bayer disputes the cancer claims but previously set aside $16 billion to settle cases, and earlier this year proposed a $7.25 billion class-action settlement. A federal judge recently ruled that the proposed settlement will be heard in a Missouri state court, where many of the lawsuits have been filed. At the same time, the company has tried to persuade states to pass laws shielding it from liability in failure-to-warn lawsuits, and three states have agreed.

About 200,000 Roundup-related claims have been made against Bayer, mostly from home users. It has stopped using glyphosate in Roundup sold in the U.S. residential lawn and garden market.

The company has said it might have to consider pulling glyphosate from U.S. agricultural markets if it keeps getting sued. Agricultural industry group say could have a devastating effect on the food supply.

But pesticides have also created a rift between the Trump administration and members of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy’s MAHA movement, adding to their frustration with an executive order aimed at boosting glyphosate’s production.

Kennedy himself has said repeatedly that glyphosate causes cancer, even as he says he recognizes the executive order was necessary for food supply and national security reasons.

Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press. AP writer David A. Lieb in Jefferson City, Mo., contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Monday ruled that a recently revamped version of a federal tool central to the Trump administration’s election integrity strategy is unlawful and can no longer be used.

U.S. District Court Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan sided with advocacy groups that argued the recent upgrades to the program, called Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE, aggregated Americans’ sensitive personal data in a way that could result in voters being wrongly purged from voter rolls.

“All in all, the federal government has knowingly trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens in a manner that threatens the sacred right to vote,” Sooknanan said in an order explaining the decision. “This Court cannot stand idly by while that happens.”

She said Congress had expressly prohibited the government from centralizing Americans’ personal identifying information and that the federal agencies that created the SAVE program “knew that the database violates those statutory protections.”

The decision is a major legal setback for President Trump in his efforts to use federal agencies to encourage a nationwide crackdown on noncitizens illegally on state voter rolls. The modified SAVE system, which critics had referred to as an unlawful centralized federal database of voter information, had been a key pillar of the second election executive order the Republican president signed earlier this year. The ruling leaves its future uncertain.

“It’s amazing how hard the Left will fight to stop us from solving problems they insist do not exist,” James Percival, general counsel at the Department of Homeland Security, said of the ruling in a social media post.

The department referred to his post as its comment on the ruling. The Department of Justice did not immediately return a request for comment.

The SAVE program was created under an immigration law mandating that Homeland Security help federal, state and local agencies prevent government benefits from going to noncitizens. At least 25 states used it to check their voter rolls since April 2025, after the Trump administration significantly expanded its search abilities. Since then, at least 67 million registrations have been scanned through the program, but critics worry it could end up purging valid voters from the rolls.

The plaintiffs, including the League of Women Voters, the Electronic Privacy Information Center and five unnamed U.S. citizens, had alleged the revamped SAVE program violated Americans’ privacy and voting rights. The groups also alleged the Trump administration violated federal privacy laws by ignoring transparency requirements about the changes to the system.

“The agencies were scrambling to comply with an Executive Order aimed at reshaping federal elections, which directed them to create a system for mass voter verification,” the judge wrote. “So they haphazardly combined and repurposed the private information of millions of Americans, including citizenship data that they knew to be unreliable.”

Plaintiffs attorney Nikhel Sus told the court during the October hearing that naturalized citizens face a greater risk of unlawfully being purged from voter rolls.

“They are uniquely vulnerable to errors in the database,” said Sus, an attorney for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

Sus said Monday he sees Sooknanan’s ruling as an “across the board victory” and noted the plaintiffs were pleased the judge’s ruling reinforced their argument that the federal government doesn’t have implied authority to freely share sensitive data across agencies.

Swenson and Hussein write for the Associated Press. Swenson reported from New York.

A viral youth satirical protest movement, the Cockroach Janta Party, has emerged following exam cancellations last month.

India has blocked the Telegram messaging app until Monday and ordered the platform to disable the editing feature on messages already posted, saying the platform has been used to “defraud candidates” and for “paper leaks” regarding upcoming national student examinations.

The restriction was issued on Tuesday under a stringent provision of the IT law, which empowers the government to block access to online sites in the interest of India’s “sovereignty and integrity”.

Activists said the provision is used to curb free speech although Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government said it ‌acts in compliance with the law and in the public interest.

Last month, the government cancelled a key undergraduate entrance exam for medical schools known as the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) after authorities discovered the questions had been leaked beforehand.

The leaks led to a series of student protests across the country, including the emergence of a satirical viral movement, the Cockroach Janta Party, that demanded the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.

The government has scheduled a new examination for Sunday.

The restrictions on Telegram were imposed “in ⁠response to the organised use of the platform by cheating rackets to defraud candidates ⁠appearing for the NEET 2026 re-examination scheduled on 21 June 2026”, the Ministry of Education’s National Testing Agency said in a statement.

Telegram has grown rapidly ⁠in India, and the country is its biggest market for downloads although WhatsApp remains the dominant messaging platform.

The government said ⁠it “regrets the inconvenience caused” due to the blocking of the application, which will affect hundreds of thousands of people, but it said it is a measure of “last resort” as earlier attempts to take down content from the platform had not produced results.

June 12 (UPI) — A federal judge blocked a lawsuit by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton against Democratic fundraising platform ActBlue.

In a 15-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns granted ActBlue a preliminary injunction banning Paxton from continuing the litigation, finding that ActBlue was likely to win in its claims that the suit infringed on its First Amendment’s free-speech protections.

The judge said the suit was filed in retaliation of ActBlue raising funds for James Talarico, who is running for Senate against Paxton.

“The lawsuit in Texas is undoubtedly an adverse action,” Stearns wrote in the order. “And having previously found bad faith, the court agrees with ActBlue that the evidence in the record compels the conclusion that, far from protecting Texas consumers, the action was filed in retaliation for ActBlue’s fundraising on behalf of Talarico, Paxton’s current political rival for the Senate seat.”

Paxton began an investigation in 2023 against the organization for allegedly enabling international donors to make gifts through gift cards and prepaid debit cards. President Donald Trump requested the investigation before he was re-elected. Paxton filed suit in April.

“The truth is plain and captured in Paxton’s own declarations: The lawsuit was filed in retaliation for (and in an attempt to suppress) ActBlue’s efforts to fund [James] Talarico’s campaign,” Stearns ruled.

ActBlue sued in Boston to stop Paxton, claiming Paxton’s suit was “rife with false and inflammatory allegations” and was filed soon after a $2 million funding day for Talarico. ActBlue is based in Massachusetts.

“Paxton’s public statements in the wake of filing the case against ActBlue reveal his true motivation,” Stearns wrote. “While a prosecutor is entitled to a large degree of prosecutorial discretion and has a right to make a considered public accounting of his actions, Paxton did not hesitate in drawing a connection between the lawsuit and his candidacy for Senate.”

Paxton had alleged that ActBlue had misrepresented itself to donors.

“The platform does nothing more than facilitate political donations from private donors, who seek out its convenience, anonymity and aggregation of the benefit bestowed on chosen political candidates,” Stearns ruled.

June 8 (UPI) — A federal judge ruled Monday that a $100,000 visa fee for U.S.companies seeking highly skilled workers from other countries is illegal. This voids the requirement set by President Donald Trump by a presidential proclamation in September.

Judge Leo Sorokin said the policy violated the U.S. Constitution and the federal Administrative Procedure Act and that only Congress has the authority to change federal immigration policy to require the fee. The Trump administration says it will appeal the ruling.

“The president lacked the power or delegated authority to impose a tax on H-1B petitions,” Sorokin said in his decision, CNN reported.

A group of Democratic state attorneys brought the case in December. Letitia James, New York attorney general, was among them.

“Every day, thousands of people with H-1B visas serve New Yorkers as doctors, teachers and other skilled workers,” James said Monday, CNBC reported. “Today, a court put an end to this administration’s illegal attempt to destroy this critical program and the many jobs it makes possible.”

Before Trump’s proclamation, H-1B visa fees ranged from $2,000 to $5,000 per application, CNBC reported. These visas are meant for foreign professionals who hold at least a bachelor’s degree to work in more specialized fields. They’re valid for three years and can be renewed for another three years after that. The New York Times reported that about 85,000 of such visas are available annually, and that they are often used by universities and companies in the fields of technology, finance and medicine.

White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said in a statement to CNBC after the ruling that “President Trump has clear legal authority to restrict entry of any class of aliens he determines is not in America’s best interests, and that is exactly what he did.” She said the visa program “has been abused for decades.”

May 29 (UPI) — A federal judge on Friday said President Donald Trump‘s name must be removed from the John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts in a ruling that also blocked plans to shutter the facility for two years for renovations.

U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper for the District of Columbia handed down the decisions halting Trump’s plans to impose sweeping changes at the historic venue.

The Kennedy Center’s board of trustees voted in December to add Trump’s name to the building. The decision came less than a year after Trump dismissed the entire board and named new board members, who in turn elected him chairman.

“Congress gave the Kennedy Center its name, and only Congress can change it,” Cooper wrote.

Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-Ohio, sued in response to the name change. Meanwhile, a coalition launched a separate lawsuit in March asking the court to stop the administration from shuttering the facility for two years and carrying out its quarter-billion-dollar reconstruction project.

Trump said the decision to close the facility came after a yearlong review in consultation with contractors, musical experts, arts institutions, and advisers and consultants. He had initially considered a partial project that would permit shows to continue, but decided the best option for the venue was a temporary closure.

Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-Ohio, an ex officio member of the board who sued to have access about the details of renovations, said she believes Trump wants to shutter the Kennedy Center in response to dozens of individuals and cultural organizations who have canceled appearances there in response to Trump trying to rename the center after himself. Beatty said the documents she received about the renovations were “inadequate.”

She said “the documents prove that there is absolutely no basis to shutter this precious living memorial and beloved institution,” she said in a statement. “It certainly looks like President Trump is shutting down the center because he is embarrassed that ticket sales are down and artists are fleeing since his illegal renaming.”

Beatty’s lawyers said she was concerned Trump might use his hand-selected board to push through wholesale changes at the Kennedy Center to design a facility more to his liking. In October, Trump had the East Wing of the White House demolished to make room for a $250 million ballroom.

In a post on Truth Social in March, Trump shared renderings of what he expected the center to look like after the renovations. He said he’s not planning to rip out the facade.

A Washington Post analysis of the renderings show very few changes to the exterior of the building, including altered cornices, updated roof and some windows, painted columns, new signage and landscaping changes.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge ruled Friday that President Trump’s name was illegally added to the Kennedy Center and blocked the administration from closing the cultural and arts venue for major renovations.

U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper in Washington, D.C., ruled that the Kennedy Center board’s March 16 vote to close the facility was “ill-informed and seemingly preordained” with no regard for its legal obligations.

“The trustees might have assessed the propriety of closure in a number of prudent ways. This was not one,” he wrote.

Cooper also concluded that the board “overstepped its statutory bounds” by unilaterally adding Trump’s name to the center. Congress gave the Kennedy Center its name, and only Congress can change it, he said.

Roma Daravi, the Kennedy Center’s vice president of public relations, said Friday the institution is “confident that on appeal the court will uphold the Board’s will to recognize President Trump’s historic contributions to our nation’s cultural center.” She said the decision would be reviewed “carefully.”

“Though the reality remains — the Center requires an urgent and significant restoration – a truth that even the plaintiff acknowledges,” Daravi said. “With $257 million secured by President Trump and approved by Congress, the resources are in place and we remain committed to pursuing every lawful avenue to ensure the Trump Kennedy Center is restored as a national cultural landmark for all Americans to enjoy.”

Cooper held hearings in late April for parallel lawsuits challenging the project. One was filed by a group of cultural and historic preservation organizations. The other was brought Rep. Joyce Beatty, an Ohio Democrat who serves as an ex-officio member of the Kennedy Center’s board. He ruled in favor of Beatty’s request but rejected the other challenge.

Justice Department attorneys said renovation plans for the building are limited in scope and well within the board’s authority to make without needing outside approvals.

The plaintiffs worry the president and his board allies will flout preservation rules designed to maintain the building’s historic fabric. In earlier statements in court hearings, attorneys for Beatty and the preservation groups raised doubts about the limited scope of the project, pointing to Trump’s statements that he would “fully expose” the building’s steel skeleton. Beatty has said she was “very fearful that we’ll see what happened with the East Wing and what happened with the Rose Garden” if the center is closed and the renovations allowed unsupervised, referring to major changes the president has made at the White House.

Trump, a Republican, has taken a keen interest in the Kennedy Center’s operations since he returned to White House last year. He installed a handpicked board that named him chairman. His name was added to the facade of a building that is considered a living monument to President John F. Kennedy.

The Kennedy Center has kept up performances ahead of the closure, though at a much slower pace than in previous years. Trump attended the premiere of the musical “Chicago” in March and other shows, including “Moulin Rouge” are slated for June.

Bill Maher, the comedian who has had an up and down relationship with Trump, is expected to be awarded the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor on June 28, an event that was anticipated to be one of the final big moments at the Kennedy Center before the closure.

Cooper was nominated to the bench by Democratic President Obama.

Kunzelman and Sloan write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Friday temporarily blocked President Trump’s administration from paying any claims through a new $1.776 billion settlement fund for the Republican president’s allies who believe they were victims of a weaponized government.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Va., also barred the government from moving forward with the fund’s creation while litigation is pending to challenge it.

The judge, who was nominated to the bench by President Clinton, a Democrat, scheduled a June 12 hearing for arguments on whether to extend the order blocking payouts from an “Anti-Weaponization Fund.” The government created the fund to resolve Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns.

The White House declined to comment on the judge’s ruling and referred all questions to the Justice Department, which didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The fund has generated a fierce backlash since it was announced last week, with even Republicans pressing acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche over the eligibility considerations and the possibility that even violent rioters at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, would be free to seek compensation.

The Justice Department hasn’t formed the five-member commission that will decide on payout criteria, so there has been no money paid out yet or claims accepted.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys from the legal advocacy group Democracy Forward are seeking a court order halting the fund’s implementation and preventing the Trump administration from disbursing any payouts from it. The federal suit claims there is no legal basis or accountability behind the fund.

The Virginia lawsuit’s plaintiffs include a fired prosecutor and a college professor acquitted of assaulting federal agents at a protest.

“The unlawfulness that has imbued the Anti-Weaponization Fund from its inception requires that it be wholly dismantled,” the suit says.

At least two other lawsuits, both filed separately in Washington, also are challenging the fund’s creation. A lawsuit filed by the advocacy group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington refers to the fund as “a jaw-dropping act of presidential corruption.” Two police officers who helped defend the Capitol from a mob of Trump supporters sued last week.

During a congressional hearing, Blanche wouldn’t rule out the possibility that rioters who assaulted police on Jan. 6 could be eligible for fund payouts.

Nearly 1,600 people were charged with Capitol riot-related federal crimes. Over 1,200 were convicted and sentenced before Trump handed out mass pardons, commuted prison sentences and ordered the dismissal of every pending Jan. 6 criminal case last year.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Darlene Superville, Alanna Durkin Richer and Eric Tucker contributed to this report.

Federal judges on Tuesday blocked Alabama’s plan to use a congressional map that could give Republicans an advantage in a key U.S. House race in the midterm elections.

A three-judge panel in the state’s long-running redistricting case issued a preliminary injunction that prevents the state from switching maps, ruling that the Republican-backed plan “intentionally discriminated based on race” by including only one Black-majority district. The judges instead required Alabama to continue using a court-ordered map in place for the 2024 elections that includes two districts where Black residents comprise a majority or close to it.

“Ultimately, we cannot see our way clear to requiring Alabamians to cast their votes in the 2026 elections under a districting plan tainted by intentional race-based discrimination,” the judges wrote.

The ruling is a setback for Republicans, who want to use a map for the November midterms that would give the GOP a chance to reclaim the seat now held by Democratic U.S. Rep. Shomari Figures. However, the state could appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Figures said he is pleased with the ruling but expects an appeal. “This is a significant step in the right direction, but there is still a long way to go before this fight is settled,” Figures said.

The court order is the latest development in the twisting legal and political saga following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down a Black-majority district in Louisiana and weakened the federal Voting Rights Act. That ruling has led Republicans in several Southern states, including Alabama, to take steps to reshape voting districts with large minority populations that have elected Democrats.

The redistricting frenzy is part of a broader push by President Trump to try to hold on to Republicans’ slim House majority in the November elections.

Alabama court fight stretches back several years

The three-judge panel in 2023 ruled that a map drawn by Republican state lawmakers intentionally diluted the voting power of Black citizens. The court said the state, which is about 27% Black, should have two districts where Black voters are the majority or close to it. The court-selected map was used in 2024.

After the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in the Louisiana case, Alabama officials moved to implement the 2023 state-drawn map. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority agreed to lift the injunction that had blocked the map’s use and sent the case back to the three-judge panel for reconsideration in light of the Louisiana ruling.

In the meantime, Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey set Aug. 11 special primaries using the new map.

Upon further review, the panel said there was “undisputed evidence” of intentional racial discrimination. It said the special congressional primaries should instead proceed under the previous court-approved districts.

The decision to temporarily block the map switch came after a seven-hour court hearing Friday in which judges sharply questioned state lawyers about the timeline and the impact of the Louisiana ruling.

Using the same districts that had been in place for the previous election would prevent “an expensive, aggressive, and perhaps logistically impossible voter reassignment effort,” the judges wrote.

“Candidate and voter confusion is troublesome and warrants significant consideration, but we do not see that a preliminary injunction will worsen it. To the contrary, we expect a preliminary injunction to lessen it,” the judges said.

Deuel Ross, director of litigation for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, said the court ruling “again vindicated the constitutional rights of voters in the Black Belt, and our clients look forward to voting under a fair map this fall.”

Redistricting changes affect primaries in several states

Other states also have considered adjustments to their primary elections to allow time for congressional redistricting after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision affecting the Voting Rights Act. Louisiana’s congressional primaries, scheduled for May 16, were postponed until later this summer by Republican Gov. Jeff Landry so that state lawmakers could consider a new U.S. House map that would eliminate a majority-Black district.

In South Carolina, the Republican-led legislature is considering a plan that could throw out the votes from its June 9 congressional primary and instead hold a new primary in August under revised districts that could improve Republicans’ chances of winning an additional seat.

Tennessee also moved quickly to enact new U.S. House districts after the Supreme Court’s ruling, carving up a Black-majority district based in Memphis that had elected the state’s only Democratic representative. The new map gives Republicans a chance to sweep all nine of the state’s seats. As part of the plan, Tennessee temporarily reopened the candidate qualifying period for its August congressional primaries, allowing new candidates to enter the race and existing ones to either switch districts or drop out.

Since Trump first urged Texas to redraw its U.S. House districts last summer, about a half-dozen Republican-led states have enacted new voting districts, though some still face legal challenges. Democrats countered with new districts in California and also expect to gain a seat from new court-imposed districts in Utah.

Chandler and Lieb write for the Associated Press.