case

U.S. abortion opponents are increasingly frustrated with the lack of action by President Trump’s administration to stem the flow of abortion pills prescribed online that they view as undermining state abortion bans.

A court ruling this week in a lawsuit the Louisiana attorney general brought against Trump’s Food and Drug Administration cast a spotlight on the simmering tension. The judge said the state has a strong case while declining to block telehealth prescriptions to the pill mifepristone for now.

Anti-abortion groups are pushing the FDA to move faster with a review that they hope will result in restrictions on the abortion pill, including blocking its prescribing via telehealth platforms. The administration says the work takes time.

The groups have focused mostly on the health agency and not the Republican president whose three U.S. Supreme Court appointees were instrumental in the 2022 ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade and allowed the state bans in the first place. But the administration’s requests in the Louisiana lawsuit and similar ones elsewhere to delay rulings until it finishes a review have sparked anger for some activists.

“The stall tactics are beyond frustrating,” Kristi Hamrick, a spokesperson for Students for Life of America, said in an interview. Hamrick said the administration could also block the pills from being mailed by changing its interpretation of a 19th century law and enforcing it.

A judge opened the door to pushing the administration

U.S. District Judge David Joseph, who was nominated to the bench by Trump, gave a mixed ruling Tuesday in a case brought by Louisiana Atty. Gen. Liz Murrill and a woman who says her boyfriend coerced her into taking mifepristone to end a pregnancy.

Their overall aim is to roll back FDA rules that have made the pills more accessible. Murrill, like officials in other states that have filed similar lawsuits, contends that the availability of the pills via online providers takes the teeth out of the bans in the 13 states that bar abortion at all stages of pregnancy, with limited exceptions.

Surveys of abortion providers have suggested that its availability through telehealth is a reason the number of abortions in the U.S. has not dropped since the overturn of Roe. While state abortion bans include prohibitions on abortion using the pills, some Democratic-controlled states have adopted laws that seek to protect medical providers who prescribe them over telehealth and mail the pills to states with bans. Those so-called shield laws are being tested through civil and criminal cases.

In the Louisiana case, Joseph declined to grant Murrill’s request to block telehealth prescriptions to the pills while the case moves through the courts. But he said he could do that eventually and the plaintiffs in the case are likely to succeed on the merits of their arguments because the state has demonstrated it’s suffered “irreparable harm.”

He also ordered the FDA to report to him within six months on the status of its review of the drug.

On Wednesday, Murrill filed a notice that she’s taking the case to the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in hopes of forcing faster action.

The politics aren’t simple

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, an influential conservative voice who is also a former Louisiana lawmaker, applauded Murrill’s step.

He said people he meets are often shocked to learn that the number of abortions has not dropped since the 2022 Supreme Court ruling.

“Bewilderment sets in,” he said. “We’re already seeing an enthusiasm gap between the parties. What the Republicans do not need is a dampening of enthusiasm in their base.”

He’s hoping the administration will restrict abortion pills rather than risk losing support from conservative, anti-abortion voters in November’s midterm elections.

Other groups are being more cautions.

Madison LaClare, director of federal government affairs at National Right to Life, said her group trusts the administration to review mifepristone. Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, avoided harsh words for the president: “The Trump-Vance administration has an important opportunity right now to prioritize women’s safety,” she said in a statement.

Still, recent electoral results suggest that voters seeking to keep abortion available have the political momentum. Since Roe was overturned, abortion has been on the ballot directly in 17 states. Voters have sided with the abortion-rights side in 14 of those questions.

“There seems to be an emerging consensus in the country that people don’t want to ban abortion,” said Rachel Rebouche, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law who studies abortion.

The FDA says it’s working on it

In a statement Wednesday in response to questions from the Associated Press, the FDA said it’s reviewing the safety of mifepristone, “including the collection of robust and timely data, evaluation of data integrity, and implementation of the analyses, validation, and peer-review.”

After that, the agency said, it will decide whether to make changes to the rules about how the drug can be prescribed.

It said this kind of study can take a year or more to complete by academics but the agency is trying to move faster than that. A spokesperson did not answer questions about when the work began.

Mifepristone has been a political priority for anti-abortion activists and their allies in Congress since Trump returned to office last year. In his January 2025 confirmation hearing, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was repeatedly asked about the drug by Republican lawmakers and said the president had requested a safety review.

Frustration over signs that the FDA isn’t prioritizing curbing abortions flared last fall when the FDA approved an additional generic version of mifepristone.

The drug is most often used for abortion in combination with another drug, misoprostol.

Mifepristone was approved in 2000 as a safe and effective way to end early pregnancies.

Because of rare cases of excessive bleeding, the FDA initially imposed strict limits on who could prescribe and distribute the pill — only specially certified physicians and only after an in-person appointment where the person would receive the pill.

Both those requirements were dropped during the COVID years. At the time, FDA officials said that after more than 20 years of monitoring mifepristone use, and reviewing dozens of studies involving thousands of women, it was clear that women could safely use the pill without direct supervision.

Mulvihill and Perrone write for the Associated Press.

U.S. government attorneys on Tuesday told a federal judge the Department of Homeland Security still intends to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Liberia, despite a new agreement with Costa Rica to accept deportees who cannot legally be returned to their home countries.

The Salvadoran national’s case has become a focal point in the immigration debate after he was mistakenly deported to El Salvador last year. Since his return, he has been fighting a second deportation to a series of African countries proposed by Homeland Security officials.

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, of Maryland, previously barred U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement from deporting him or detaining him. She has written that the agency has no viable plan to actually deport Abrego Garcia, referring in February to “one empty threat after another to remove him to countries in Africa with no real chance of success.”

Abrego Garcia has argued that if he is going to be deported, it should be to Costa Rica, which previously agreed to accept him. But Todd Lyons, the acting head of U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement, said in a March memo that deporting Abrego Garcia to Costa Rica would be “prejudicial to the United States.” Abrego Garcia should be sent to Liberia because the U.S. has spent government resources and political capital negotiating with the West African nation to accept third-country nationals, Lyons wrote.

At a Tuesday hearing in Xinis’ court, Ernesto Molina, director of the Department of Justice’s Office of Immigration Litigation, suggested that Abrego Garcia could “remove himself” to Costa Rica.

Xinis pointed out that the Justice Department is prosecuting him in Tennessee on human smuggling charges. She called it a “fantasy” to say that he can remove himself anywhere while the criminal case is pending. Xinis set a schedule for a briefing on the matter and scheduled a new hearing for April 28.

Abrego Garcia, 30, has an American wife and child and has lived in Maryland for years, but he immigrated to the U.S. illegally as a teenager. In 2019, an immigration judge ruled that he could not be deported to El Salvador because he faced danger there from a gang that had threatened his family. By mistake, he was deported there anyway last year.

Facing public pressure and a court order, President Trump’s administration brought him back in June, but only after securing an indictment charging him with human smuggling in Tennessee. He has pleaded not guilty and asked the judge to dismiss that case.

Loller writes for the Associated Press.

Grammy winner Lil Nas X is another step closer to potentially resolving his felony police battery case.

A Los Angeles judge on Monday granted the “Industry Baby” and “Old Town Road” singer’s motion for diversion, ordering the 26-year-old musician to enter a two-year mental health program, according to multiple outlets. TMZ reported that Lil Nas X — birth name Montero Hill — will be cleared of his four felony counts if he complies with treatment and commits no other crimes.

A legal representative for the rapper-singer, who was naked when he was arrested in Studio City last August, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Monday. Lil Nas X, who returned to Van Nuys Courthouse for a hearing, told media he was feeling “thankful” and echoed a previous comment that he misses his fans.

“I’m just going through the flow of life,” he said outside the courthouse, according to video published by Rolling Stone reporter Nancy Dillon.

Lil Nas X, who rose to fame in 2019 with his hit song “Old Town Road,” was hospitalized and arrested in August after he was seen strolling in only his underwear and white boots through Studio City. By the time he was arrested he had shed even those items.

The singer received treatment at a nearby hospital for a possible overdose but was accused of assaulting police officers. He was charged with four felony counts: three counts of battery with injury on a police officer and one count of resisting an executive officer. Police allege the singer assaulted the officers who were trying to take him into custody. Lil Nas X had pleaded not guilty to all those counts.

Days after his Studio City episode, Lil Nas X reassured fans on social media he would be all right. “That was terrifying,” he recalled of his arrest,”that was a terrifying four days but ya girl’s gonna be all right.”

Rolling Stone reported that during Monday’s hearing Judge Alan Schneider said the singer’s behavior in August was “aberrant from his normal conduct” and related to his bipolar diagnosis. Schneider also observed that the artist “appears to be doing very well” and “when treated, he is much better off, and society is much better off,” the outlet said.

“Little House on the Prairie” alumna Melissa Gilbert remains steadfast in her support for husband Timothy Busfield, the Emmy-winning actor who has been embroiled in a child sex abuse scandal since earlier this year.

Gilbert, in her first sit-down interview since Busfield’s indictment in February, told ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos she trusts her husband “with my children’s lives, my grandchildren’s lives, my nieces and nephews” and said she expects the “Thirtysomething” star will be exonerated at trial next year.

“Believe me, if I thought for a second that Tim Busfield hurt a child, he’d have a lot more to worry about than prison,” she said in part of the interview that aired Monday on “Good Morning America.”

In February, a New Mexico grand jury indicted 68-year-old Busfield on four counts of criminal sexual contact of a child. A month prior, New Mexico officials accused Busfield of of inappropriately touching two child actors, who are brothers, during his time as an actor, director and producer on the Fox crime drama “The Cleaning Lady.”

One child actor alleged that Busfield had first touched his “private areas” multiple times on set when he was 7, according to the complaint. He said Busfield touched him inappropriately again several times when he was 8. The affidavit also detailed a police interview with Busfield in which he suggested that the boys’ mother might have sought “revenge” on the director for “not bringing her kids back for the final season.”

Busfield turned himself in to law enforcement days after the warrant was issued and denied the accusations. He was jailed at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Albuquerque but was released on his own recognizance Jan. 20.

For Gilbert, 61, the allegations and ensuing chain of events have been “hell.” Recent months have brought “the most traumatizing experiences of our lives,” she told Stephanopoulos, adding, “Our life as we knew it is done.”

The couple married in 2013. “The West Wing” actor Busfield has three adult children from two previous marriages and is the stepfather to Gilbert’s two adult sons from her two previous marriages. When the allegations first surfaced, a publicist for Gilbert said the actor would not comment on her husband’s case, denounced “any purported statements” and said that Gilbert was focused on caring for her and Busfield’s family.

During the Monday interview Gilbert said she and her husband are “grieving what we had: all of our plans, all of our dreams, all of our ideas, all of our projects.” She said her husband has become persona non grata — “canceled,” in her words — and that the allegations will continue to cast a shade over his career “even if he’s exonerated.” Busfield’s lawyer Larry Stein and Gilbert both told Stephanopoulos they are confident that will be the case.

When asked what justice for her husband might look like, Gilbert replied: “Exoneration and apology. Free him from this cloud.”

Elsewhere in the interview, attorney Stein doubled down on his belief that the child actors and their parents are “absolutely” making false allegations against Busfield. The actors’ parents did not respond to ABC News’ request for comment.

Gilbert also told Stephanopoulos that before she married Busfield, she was aware he had been accused of sexual harassment twice by different women, once in 1994 and another time in 2012. Those two cases were mentioned in the January complaint against Busfield.

“I didn’t go into my relationship with him blind. I am neither naive nor am I complicit,” she said, adding she and her husband discussed those claims. “I heard his side of the story which no one has ever heard which is the truth. And when the time is right, and that is not now, Tim will tell the truth of all of these past allegations when he needs to.”

WASHINGTON — Steve Bannon, a longtime ally of President Trump, on Monday won a Supreme Court order that is expected to lead to the dismissal of his criminal conviction for refusing to testify to Congress.

Prodded by the Trump administration, the justices threw out an appellate ruling upholding Bannon’s conviction for defying a subpoena from the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack by a mob of Trump supporters on the U.S. Capitol.

The move frees a trial judge to act on the Republican administration’s pending request to dismiss Bannon’s conviction and indictment “in the interests of justice.”

The dismissal would be largely symbolic. Bannon served a four-month prison term after a jury convicted him of contempt of Congress in 2022. A federal appeals court in Washington had upheld the conviction.

The justices also issued a similar order in the case of former Cincinnati Councilman P.G. Sittenfeld, who was pardoned by Trump last year.

Sittenfeld had served 16 months in federal prison after a jury convicted him of bribery and attempted extortion in 2022. The high court order allows a lower court to consider dismissing his indictment.

The Justice Department brought the case against Bannon during Democrat Joe Biden’s presidency, but it changed course after Trump took office again last year.

Bannon had initially argued that his testimony was protected by Trump’s claim of executive privilege. But the House panel and the Justice Department contended such a claim was dubious because Trump had fired Bannon from the White House in 2017 and Bannon was thus a private citizen when he was consulting with the then-president in the run-up to the Capitol riot.

Bannon separately has pleaded guilty in a New York state court to defrauding donors to a private effort to build a wall on the U.S. southern border, as part of a plea deal that allowed him to avoid jail time. That conviction is unaffected by the Supreme Court action.

Sherman writes for the Associated Press.

Across the country, President Trump has installed handpicked loyalists as top federal prosecutors. Several have been pushed out after legal battles because they lack Senate confirmation to serve as U.S. attorneys.

But in Los Angeles, Bill Essayli wields the power of a top prosecutor under a lesser title: “first assistant.”

Essayli clocked his first full year in office this week. He has survived the kinds of challenges that sunk Trump picks in other states through a combination of legal gamesmanship by the U.S. Department of Justice and a lack of action by judges in the Central District of California.

Essayli has used his position to act as one of Trump’s fiercest legal foot soldiers. He has pursued criminal charges against protesters, activists and immigrants while dropping cases involving administration allies and supporting lawsuits over transgender and environmental policies in California.

After Trump’s firing Thursday of U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, it’s unclear how her replacement will handle continuing battles over the legality of Trump’s appointees. Essayli is popular with high-level administration officials, and received a congratulatory post on X from Vice President JD Vance over the filing of fraud cases earlier this week.

A conservative former state Assembly member from Riverside County, Essayli, 40, was sworn in as interim U.S. attorney last April. Around the time he hit that role’s 120-day limit, Bondi made him a “special attorney” and designated him “first assistant.” A federal judge later disqualified Essayli as acting U.S. attorney, finding he was “not lawfully serving” in the top role. But the judge said he had no authority to undo Essayli’s designation as first assistant. With no one above him in the office, that title leaves Essayli as the de facto U.S. attorney.

In other jurisdictions, members of the federal bench have exercised their authority to appoint an interim U.S. attorney. Chief U.S. District Judge Dolly M. Gee’s chambers did not respond to a request for comment about why no similar action has been taken in L.A.

A court spokesman declined to comment. Essayli did not respond to a request for comment. The White House referred questions to the Justice Department.

A Justice Department spokesperson issued a statement that praised Essayli for prosecuting “drug cartels and transnational criminal organizations, sex traffickers, violent street gangs, leftist rioters and domestic terrorists, fraudsters, and child predators.”

“It is a disservice to our prosecutors and the American people when judges prevent the President and the Attorney General from installing qualified and capable prosecutors who will aggressively enforce our laws and make America safe again,” the Justice Department spokesperson said.

The lack of action by Gee, a President Obama appointee, has surprised some legal observers, especially given the swiftness with which judges in other districts have acted. It also has frustrated some former federal prosecutors that fled the office under Essayli’s chaotic tenure.

One former assistant U.S. attorney, who left the office under Essayli and requested anonymity to discuss sitting judges who will likely preside over future cases of theirs in the district, accused Gee and others of “shirking their responsibilities” by not appointing someone to the vacant U.S. attorney post.

Another former Central District prosecutor who left the office before Essayli’s appointment said Gee was being practical, taking a “protective” stance to “keep the court away from the ire and invectives coming out of the White House.”

It is “unfair to say the court is abdicating its authority,” said the ex-prosecutor, who also requested anonymity to speak candidly about the district’s judges.

Under long-standing Senate tradition, individual senators can block a U.S. attorney nominee in their home state by withholding their “blue slip,” which clears a nominee’s path to a confirmation hearing.

Trump has tried to skirt the Senate confirmation process to appoint top federal prosecutors in multiple states, including New Jersey and Virginia, where two of the president’s personal lawyers were named U.S. attorney — who immediately moved to zealously advance the president’s agenda and, in some cases, prosecute his rivals.

In Virginia, Trump replaced U.S. Atty. Erik Siebert, a nominee who was under Senate consideration, with one of his former personal attorneys, Lindsey Halligan. Siebert had refused to prosecute some of Trump’s political enemies and resigned. In her first ever criminal case, Halligan swiftly moved to indict former FBI Director James B. Comey. The prosecution was later thrown out and Halligan’s appointment deemed illegal.

In New York’s Northern District, when judges moved to oust the president’s former campaign attorney — who received the same “first assistant” designation as Essayli — Justice Department officials promptly fired his replacement.

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, said Trump’s attempts to bypass the normal confirmation processes are unconstitutional.

“This is very troubling because it circumvents the constitutional procedure of having the president nominate and the Senate confirm. That’s crucial to checks and balances,” he said. “This allows the president to appoint whoever he wants.”

Though Essayli has more law enforcement experience than many of Trump’s chosen prosecutors, he’s still struggled to achieve courtroom victories. His prosecutors have lost nearly all the cases they’ve brought to trial against anti-Trump protesters and abandoned others after grand juries refused to return indictments.

Meghan Blanco, a former federal prosecutor and veteran defense attorney, suggested Gee’s inaction with Essayli might be a clever act of resistance. Rather than picking a fight with the White House, Blanco said, the judges are letting the top prosecutor fall on his face.

“If you’re a judge and displeased with what DOJ is doing and the shenanigans they’re pulling … you let the Essayli appointment play out,” Blanco said. “No one has seen a U.S. attorney’s office lose the way this office is losing now.”

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) told The Times this week that he is working with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to craft legislation to clarify the procedures required to appoint U.S. attorneys and prevent Trump and future presidents from circumventing the Senate.

The legislation, which Schiff did not describe in detail, faces an uphill battle even if Democrats retake the Senate in the upcoming midterms. But the California senator said he is committed to challenging Trump’s maneuvering.

Schiff said Essayli “could not be confirmed and for a reason: He lacks the judgment, temperament and integrity required of a U.S. attorney.”

Laurie Levenson, a Loyola Law School professor and former federal prosecutor, said local federal judges may believe it would be “more disruptive to try and put somebody in when the administration will just fire them.”

But their inaction, she said, has effectively confirmed Essayli as U.S. attorney — and highlights “a real weakness in the system” that demands a legislative fix.

“The bottom line is you have an administration that just doesn’t want to follow the rules,” she said. “There has to be some political will to have Congress do its duty.”

Serious food poisoning cases for UK tourists at popular travel hotspots revealed

All UK travellers and tourists planning a trip abroad have been issued a warning by health officials after a new study showed high levels of food poisoning hitting some popular resourts. A study from Cambridge University found 13 destinations in particular having higher odds of people contracting serious food poisoning such as Shigellosis, Salmonellosis, and Giardiasis.

The Foreign Office-backed Travel Health Pro website this week issued an alert warning people to take precautions, especially when travelling to popular destinations outside the EU – although some hotspots there were flagged up in the report too.

Travel Health Pro said: “All UK travellers and tourists planning a trip abroad are reminded to follow good food and water hygiene advice. This study shows that visiting countries outside of the EU, and to high-risk areas which had low water, sanitation and hygiene scores, increases the risk of infections that can cause stomach upset, like diarrhoea or vomiting.

Between 1 July and 15 October 2023, a rise in stomach bugs was reported in travellers returning to England from popular holiday destinations, including Egypt, Mexico, Tunisia and Turkey. Many of these travellers stayed in all-inclusive tourist resorts. The study also suggests the true number of infections is likely to be higher, as it only counted cases diagnosed in travellers after they returned home.”

Destinations where high levels of food poisoning were detected in UK tourists are:

• Egypt
• Mexico
• Tunisia
• Turkey
• Jamaica
• Dominican Republic
• Cape Verde
• Morocco
• India
• Pakistan
• Thailand,
• Greece
• Spain

The study said: ”Thirteen destinations were associated with higher odds of becoming a case, of which the highest odds were reported for Egypt, Mexico, Tunisia, and Turkey, with the odds of illness in travellers to Egypt 23 times higher than those visiting France.

READ MORE: UK tourists return with virus that ‘makes you ill for 3 years’ from 25 holiday hotspots – full listREAD MORE: Spain hotspot ‘doubles’ charge for UK travellers from today

“For those travelling to low-risk destinations, eating undercooked meat or fish, eating meat or fish purchased from local restaurants and airports, drinking purified water, and swallowing water from environmental water sources (rivers, lakes, sea, and swimming pools) were all found to be associated with higher odds of illness. In high-risk destinations, eating foods consumed on trips or excursions, swallowing water from environmental sources, drinking fruit juice or smoothies, and eating foods from hotel buffets were all associated with higher odds of being a case.”

Travel health pro this week urged people to take these steps:

• Practice good food and water hygiene at all times, even in high-end, all-inclusive resorts.
• Wash your hands often, including before eating or preparing food, after using the toilet, after changing nappies and before and after sex.
• Eat recently prepared food that is fully cooked and served piping hot.
• Where there is no clean water supply, drink only bottled or boiled tap water (this includes brushing your teeth).
• Always avoid ice in your drinks.
• Avoid fresh fruit that you have not peeled yourself and salads not washed with bottled or boiled water.
• Avoid swallowing water from ponds, lakes and untreated swimming pools.

If you become ill abroad:

• Drink plenty of ‘safe’ fluids, such as bottled water, or tap water that has been boiled and cooled, and use oral rehydration solutions so that you do not become dehydrated.
• Get early medical advice if you are at greater risk of complications from gastrointestinal infections, this includes babies/young children, older adults, pregnant women and people who are immunosuppressed or have ongoing health conditions.
• Seek medical help if symptoms (such as diarrhoea and vomiting) last more than a few days or are not improving.
• Wash contaminated clothes or bedding on a hot wash and clean toilets, taps and door handles regularly.
• Avoid using swimming pools if you have a stomach bug. Take children on regular toilet breaks and check nappies often. If you have been told you have cryptosporidium do not use a swimming pool for 2 weeks after your diarrhoea has stopped.

A recent California appellate court ruling will give civilian oversight groups the authority to subpoena the law enforcement agencies they are tasked with monitoring, a decision hailed by local advocates as a step toward greater transparency by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

In a unanimous opinion issued Thursday, justices from the state’s first appellate district found that an oversight body in Sonoma County is legally authorized to subpoena the county sheriff’s office while probing whistleblower inquiries. The justices also directed the law enforcement agency to comply with the watchdog’s requests for records.

The Independent Office of Law Enforcement Review and Outreach sued the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office in 2024 over refusals to comply with a whistleblower complaint subpoena. A lower court initially ruled in favor of the Sheriff’s Office, but the appellate judges reversed that decision.

Hans Johnson, chair of the Los Angeles County Civilian Oversight Commission, called the ruling a “big win” for law enforcement transparency.

“This is one of the most significant court rulings in recent CA history about oversight,” he said in a message to The Times. “It strengthens the powers of Civilian Oversight boards and Inspectors General and upholds our subpoena authority while also showcasing the strong public interest in robust, effective oversight of sheriffs, their departments, and their operations.”

The L.A. County Sheriff’s Department said in a statement that it is “discussing with County Counsel to determine the appropriate path for implementing any lawful authority granted to the Civilian Oversight Commission.”

Angelenos who have long sought records related to alleged misconduct by sheriff’s deputies also cheered the court’s decision.

Vanessa Perez’s son Joseph was badly beaten by deputies in the San Gabriel Valley six years ago. She has been fighting ever since for more clarity about what happened.

Perez said she hopes Thursday’s ruling will result in “some type of justice, some type of fairness” for her son and others who have been stymied by the Sheriff’s Department in efforts to obtain information.

“Hopefully we’ll have effective oversight at the end of this, someone other than LASD looking at Joseph’s case,” Perez said in a phone interview Monday. “Not one deputy, not one sheriff, nobody has ever brought to light what they did to Joseph.”

She has been vocal in her criticism of the agency and the fact that it has only released redacted versions of its “use of force” report from the July 2020 incident involving her son.

Perez’s case is one of several in which the Civilian Oversight Commission has tried unsuccessfully to pry records out of the Sheriff’s Department. Two other cases involved Emmett Brock, a trans man beaten by a deputy in a convenience store parking lot in 2023, and Andres Guardado, an 18-year-old fatally shot in 2020.

The commission subpoenaed unredacted files in the cases in Feburary 2025, but the county counsel’s office has argued they should remain confidential.

“L.A. County voters overwhelmingly approved Measure R in March 2020 to grant the Commission subpoena powers,” the Civilian Oversight Commission wrote in a statement. “However, six years later, it is not yet fully in effect.”

The county counsel’s office said in a statement that it “does not question the Civilian Oversight Commission’s power to issue subpoenas.”

But, it said, court decisions, the county’s Employee Relations Commission and the law “require that the County … meet and confer with labor partners about the impacts before documents are shared. Those discussions are underway.”

Hilda Eke, executive director of the L.A.-based advocacy organization Dignity and Power Now, said in a statement that the ruling is a positive development in the ongoing battle for more transparency.

“It affirms what our communities have always known: You cannot investigate injustice without the power to uncover the truth,” Eke said.

WASHINGTON  — Inside the Supreme Court, as justices heard oral arguments in the case over birthright citizenship, President Trump became the first sitting president to attend such a proceeding.

Outside the court, the great-grandson of Wong Kim Ark — the San Francisco man whose landmark Supreme Court case affirmed birthright citizenship in 1898 — addressed a crowd of hundreds of people.

“Wong Kim Ark’s victory ensured that people like me and millions of others would be recognized as fully American, not outsiders in the country of our birth,” said Norman Wong. “This case transformed the 14th Amendment from words on paper into living promise. Today, that promise is still being tested.”

Surrounded by protesters in favor of birthright citizenship was a lone counter-protester. The woman, who wore a red baseball cap and a sweatshirt stating “Chicago flips red,” yelled into a megaphone as speakers addressed the crowd.

“Freedmen stand with Donald Trump,” she said as the Rev. William Barber II spoke. “America first. Americans first.”

The Rev. William Barber II speaks during a rally on protecting birthright citizenship outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

(Al Drago / Getty Images)

Undaunted, Barber noted that the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, makes clear that anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen.

“The 14th Amendment protects babies from a caste system,” Barber said. “They didn’t allow evil in 1868, and we’re not going to allow evil in 2026.”

“Stop lying, pastor,” the woman taunted him.

After Barber finished his remarks, the woman was drowned out by Aretha Franklin’s “Respect” playing over the speakers.

Inside the building, justices heard arguments over a Trump executive order which aimed to end birthright citizenship. The administration has argued that children born of parents who are in the country illegally or temporary visas should be denied citizenship.

A man from Cameroon said he chose to speak out because he doesn’t want future generations to become stateless and feel what he has felt. The man said he had been authorized to work in the United States Temporary Protected Status until the Trump administration terminated it last year.

“I know what it feels like to have your sense of belonging taken from you overnight,” he said.

Nancy Jeannechild, 69, traveled from Baltimore with a handwritten sign asking the justices to “Do your job.” She said Trump has amassed too much power and that the Supreme Court hasn’t stood up to him enough.

“This is another opportunity for them to do the right thing, and I hope that they will,” she said. “Just because Trump doesn’t like it doesn’t mean it’s not what’s in the Constitution.”

Araceli Hernandez, 29, attended the rally with her 1-year-old son. She said she immigrated from Honduras five years ago and that her son being born here means he has better opportunities to study, access to healthcare and a safe environment to live in.

“We came to represent the children who are not yet born because they also have a right to have a better future in this country,” she said.

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said he was confident birthright citizenship would prevail because the Constitution is clear. The fight is personal, he said, as the a proud American and son of immigrants.

“The moment I was born on U.S. soil I was born a citizen, and I’ll be damned if Donald Trump tries to take that away from me,” he said. “What’s on the line isn’t just a question about citizenship — it is about upholding the Constitution, respecting the rule of law and keeping the promise that the 14th Amendment has held for more than 150 years.”

After the arguments wrapped up, Cecilia Wang, who led the defense of birthright citizenship for the American Civil Liberties Union, addressed the crowd. She said she was confident that the Trump administration would lose the case.

“Whether you’re an indigenous American, whether you are descended from African Americans who were enslaved and free, whether you are the descendant of someone who came on the Mayflower or someone who arrived just before your birth, we all are Americans alike,” she said. “That is the principle that we stood up for together, all of us, in the Supreme Court of the United States today.”

A Lahore court has ruled in favour of Pakistani singer Ali Zafar in his defamation case against fellow singer Meesha Shafi. On Tuesday, the court ordered Shafi to pay Zafar 5 million rupees ($17,900) in damages.

Zafar sued Shafi for defamation in 2018 after she accused him of sexual harassment in Pakistan’s highest-profile #MeToo case.

What has the court ruled?

The court’s ruling, which has not been released to the public but has been seen by several Pakistani media outlets, states that a 2018 social media post by Shafi and an interview she gave to a lifestyle magazine contained “false, defamatory and injurious imputations” against the plaintiff, Zafar.

The court found that her allegations of sexual harassment of a physical nature had not been proved to be true or shown to be made for the public good, and therefore constituted actionable defamation, according to Pakistan’s leading daily newspaper, Dawn.

The court added that Shafi was to be “permanently restrained from repeating, publishing, or causing to be published, directly or indirectly, the aforesaid defamatory allegations of sexual harassment of a physical nature against the plaintiff, in any form of media”.

This order will be appealed to the High Court, Nighat Dad, the lawyer who represented Shafi in court, told Al Jazeera.

As well as a member of Shafi’s legal team, Dad is the executive director of a nongovernmental, research-based advocacy organisation, the Digital Rights Foundation.

She said: “The appeal is likely to challenge the judgement on several grounds: that the trial court misread and selectively interpreted the evidence, failed to properly consider material evidence presented by Meesha, and overlooked the legal context, particularly that her sexual harassment complaint against Ali Zafar is still pending before the Supreme Court.”

What was the #MeToo case involving Shafi and Zafar?

In April 2018, Shafi, now 44, posted a statement through a series of posts on X, then called Twitter, accusing Zafar of sexually harassing her on multiple occasions.

Shafi wrote: “I have been subjected, on more than one occasion, to sexual harassment of a physical nature at the hands of a colleague from my industry: Ali Zafar.”

Shafi added that she was speaking up as an “empowered, accomplished woman who is known for speaking her mind!”

In her posts, Shafi referred to the global “#MeToo” movement by women and girls against sexual harassment and assault.

The hashtag gained worldwide prominence in 2017 when women in Hollywood and beyond began speaking out in the wake of allegations against the former American film producer and now convicted sex offender, Harvey Weinstein.

Within hours of Shafi’s post, Zafar, now 45, responded on X: “I categorically deny any and all claims of harassment lodged against me by Ms Shafi.”

He added that he intended to take the allegation to “the courts of law” and to address them legally rather than “contesting personal vendettas on social media and in turn disrespecting the movement”.

Shafi and Zafar were once known to be friends and are both prominent figures in Pakistan’s entertainment industry. Both have also made appearances in films outside Pakistan. Shafi even performed a small cameo role in 2003 in a music video for Zafar’s first album.

In April 2018, Shafi spoke about her allegations against Zafar during an interview with fashion and lifestyle magazine Instep Pakistan.

She told the magazine that she had not publicly spoken about the harassment at the time it happened because “I’m a public figure and so is he (Ali Zafar). My thought process was who I am and who he is and what that’s going to lead to. Being ready to talk was far off because it had just happened. I buried it.”

Have other women accused Zafar of inappropriate behaviour?

Yes. Several Pakistani celebrities and public figures posted in support of Shafi online after her 2018 X posts.

Additionally, other women came forward to accuse Zafar of sexual harassment.

They included makeup artist and painter Leena Ghani, who wrote in a statement on X in April 2018 that Zafar had on “several occasions” crossed the boundaries of what is considered appropriate behaviour between friends.

“Inappropriate contact, groping, sexual comments should not fall in the grey area between humour and indecency,” Ghani said.

Maham Javaid, a journalist who now works for The Washington Post, alleged in April 2018 that Zafar had tried to kiss her cousin and pull her inside a restroom in a now-deleted X post.

How has the dispute between Shafi and Zafar unfolded?

The pair have filed a slew of complaints against each other.

In June 2018, Zafar filed his one‑billion‑rupee defamation suit against Shafi. At the time, that was equivalent to more than $8m. It is now equivalent to $3.5m, due to the devaluation of the Pakistani rupee.

Shafi then filed a complaint about the alleged harassment before the Ombudsperson Punjab for Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace, later in 2018.

Her complaint was rejected on the technical grounds that she and Zafar did not have an employer-employee relationship. An appeal is pending in the Supreme Court.

Zafar also filed a separate cybercrime complaint with the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) in November 2018, alleging that Shafi and others were running a coordinated smear campaign against him on social media.

Based on this report, the FIA filed a First Information Report (FIR) against Shafi and eight others in September 2020 under Pakistan’s Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA).

Those named in the complaint included Ghani, Javaid, comedian Ali Gul Pir and actor Iffat Omar, who had publicly supported Shafi and posted critical comments about Zafar online. The PECA offences they were charged under – criminal defamation provisions covering “offences against dignity” – carried a maximum penalty of three years in prison.

It is not known publicly whether the FIA cybercrime case has reached a verdict.

In September 2019, Shafi filed her own two-billion-rupee civil defamation suit against Zafar in a Lahore court, accusing him of making false allegations about her in the media. Two billion rupees was worth roughly $13m when Shafi filed the suit in 2019; due to the rupee’s steep depreciation, the same amount is now worth about $7m. That case is ongoing.

What has been the response to this week’s defamation ruling?

Actor and television host Iffat Omar, who was also named in the FIA cybercrime case and was also a witness for Shafi in Zafar’s defamation case against her, criticised the court ruling in an X post on Tuesday.

Omar wrote: “People were silenced, pressured, bought, and scared. The entire support system was broken. On top of that, we were accused of running a foreign agenda, of being paid huge amounts in dollars. I said it then, and I say it again – prove it in court. I am ready to open all my bank accounts, everything.”

Last week, Saqib Jilani, another of Shafi’s lawyers, asked the Lahore court to dismiss the defamation lawsuit, arguing that Zafar had not produced any concrete evidence to support his defamation claims.

Also last week, Shafi’s mother, the Pakistani actor Saba Hameed, who has been attending court proceedings in Pakistan while her daughter lives in Canada, told reporters: “We have been fighting this for eight years, and we are not accepting defeat in this matter.”

What happens next?

Shafi’s legal team intends to appeal the defamation ruling in favour of Zafar to the High Court. “This is far from the end of the road,” Dad told Al Jazeera.

She added that other legal actions relating to this are ongoing.

“Meesha Shafi’s original complaint of sexual harassment against Ali Zafar has been pending before the Supreme Court for several years now,” Dad explained, referring to the 2018 complaint dismissed on technical grounds by the Office of the Ombudsperson Punjab for Protection Against Harassment of Women, but which Shafi has appealed.

“Separately, Ali Zafar initiated a criminal case alleging cyber-defamation against Meesha and her witnesses, which also reached the Supreme Court and is currently stayed.”

Dad said that Shafi’s civil defamation suit against Zafar is also still pending.

Why is this significant?

“This ruling risks setting a deeply troubling precedent,” Dad said.

Currently, she said, survivors of sexual harassment face major legal, social and reputational barriers. Decisions like the Lahore court’s recent order are likely to discourage victims of sexual harassment “from speaking out at all”.

“If defamation law is interpreted in a way that punishes speech before underlying harassment claims are even adjudicated, it shifts the burden unfairly onto survivors and reinforces silence over accountability,” Dad added.

“And that is the real danger here.”

April 1 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in a case on Wednesday that could reshape what it means to be a U.S. citizen.

The case, Trump vs. Barbara, is over President Donald Trump‘s Jan. 20, 2025, executive order “Protecting the meaning and value of American citizenship,” which seeks to change the application of the Citizenship Clause, ending birthright citizenship.

In his executive order, Trump argued that the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution “has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.”

The law of the land, as it has been recognized since the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868, has been that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Trump’s executive order remains blocked from taking effect, with lower courts affirming that his attempt to end birthright citizenship is unconstitutional. In December, the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case, beginning with oral arguments starting on Wednesday.

U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer will argue on behalf of the Trump administration.

“If the Trump executive order is upheld, it would mark an enormous change in how the United States understands who is a citizen and who is not,” Kate Masur, John D. MacArthur Professor of History at Northwestern University, told UPI.

Masur filed an amicus brief supporting a challenge to Trump’s executive order.

“There’s certainly never been a president who issued an executive order trying to undermine birthright citizenship in this way,” Masur said. “Congress has repeatedly, through legislation, affirmed birthright citizenship and the Supreme Court has also affirmed birthright citizenship.”

The Trump administration’s argument against birthright citizenship hinges on its interpretation of the term “jurisdiction” in the context of the clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

In an amicus brief by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and other Republican lawmakers, they contest that the authors of the 14th Amendment could have written “subject to the laws.” Instead, the use of the term “jurisdiction” requires “allegiance” to the United States.

“Allegiance is also a reciprocal relationship. The person must be present with the consent of the sovereign, a factor on which this Court extensively relied in United States v. Wong Kim Ark,” the Republican lawmakers argue. “But illegal aliens and their children are present in the United States without consent, i.e., only by defying its laws.”

The lawmakers also argue that their interpretation of total allegiance looks to “early English caselaw.”

The challenges to birthright citizenship by Republicans are not new, Masur said.

The Wong Kim Ark case that the Republican lawmakers referred to affirmed birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment. The case was brought on when the U.S. government denied the son of Chinese Immigrants, Wong Kim Ark, re-entry into the United States.

Ark, who was born in San Francisco, had taken a trip to China and was detained upon his return to the United States. The case took place in 1898, more than a decade after the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act, which prohibited Chinese workers from seeking citizenship in the United States.

Since Wong Kim Ark, there have continued to be opponents of birthright citizenship, though the immigrant groups their movements targeted have changed. Since the 1990s, immigrants from Spanish-speaking countries have largely been the central focus of those seeking to end birthright citizenship.

Former Sen. Steve King, R-Iowa, repeatedly introduced legislation on Capitol Hill trying to end birthright citizenship. His most recent effort was in 2015. In 2019, King was removed from all committee assignments after defending white supremacy and white nationalism, following years of racist comments throughout his 17-year career.

“The thing that these movements have in common over time is their desire to limit who among people born in the United States gets to be a citizen,” Masur said. “Usually it is driven by various anti-immigrant sentiments.”

Daisy Hernandez, author of Citizenship: Notes on an American Myth, told UPI that there are modern examples of what happens when birthright citizenship is taken away.

The Dominican Republic amended its constitution in 2010 to remove birthright citizenship for Haitians in the country. In 2013, it made the law retroactive to 1929, removing the citizenship of an estimated 200,000 people overnight.

“That is an example of what would happen in the United States. However, for us it would happen in terms of millions of people,” Hernandez said.

Children of immigrants who have their citizenship revoked become stateless, Hernandez explained. With no country to call home, they are left adrift without the right to exist anywhere.

“Statelessness means that you have no government which you can turn to in any way,” she said. “It means you do not have any documentation of any kind. You don’t have documentation that you have a right to be anywhere. The philosopher Hannah Arendt said ‘citizenship is the right to have rights.’ You need a government to recognize that you have rights.”

There are more than 4 million children in the United States who have parents who are undocumented immigrants.

If Trump’s executive order is allowed to stand by the Supreme Court, Hernandez and Masur said the United States could return to an era of the 19th century when citizenship varied from state to state.

“It is really jarring to remember once upon a time certain states within the United States recognized the citizenship and humanity of Black Americans and we had other states that did not,” Hernandez said. “So are we going to end up in a situation where a child born to an undocumented parent is recognized as a citizen as long as they stay within the state of New York or of Massachusetts but would then become stateless if they crossed into Connecticut or further south or further west?”

Most countries in the Western Hemisphere recognize birthright citizenship. The Dominican Republic and Colombia are rare exceptions.

“We have always understood being American as being very closely tied with birthright citizenship,” Hernandez said. “It would be a collapse of how we understand American identity in the United States.”

March 31 (Asia Today) — South Korea’s National Intelligence Service said Tuesday that an employee accused of involvement in a North Korea drone incident acted independently, describing the case as “personal misconduct” unrelated to official duties.

The agency said its internal inspection found the employee was an administrative staff member with no authority to collect or handle intelligence.

Officials added that the employee had known the main suspect – a graduate student in his 30s – since their college years, and that funds transferred in connection with the case were personal money, not tied to the agency.

Earlier in the day, a joint military-police task force referred the employee and two military officers to prosecutors without detention. The case involves allegations of aiding violations of national security and aviation safety laws.

The intelligence employee was sent to civilian prosecutors, while the two active-duty officers were referred to military prosecutors, all with recommendations for indictment.

Investigators said the suspects were involved in assisting the graduate student, identified only by his surname Oh, in flying a drone into North Korea.

The employee is believed to have known about the civilian suspects’ drone development activities and related business operations. Authorities said he provided about 2.9 million won ($2,200) to help cover production costs and meal expenses on the day of a test flight.

An intelligence agency official said the employee’s actions were “an individual deviation unrelated to official duties” and that the agency had cooperated fully with investigators to clarify the facts.

— 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=20260331010009597

One week ago, several outlets reported on a consequential development in the disciplinary case regarding the alleged sexual misconduct by the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor, Karim Khan. In a confidential report addressed to the Bureau of the Assembly of States Parties (ASP), the judicial experts tasked with assessing the United Nations probe’s factual findings unanimously concluded that no misconduct or breach of duty by Khan could be established under the legal framework.

It is now for the 21 ICC states represented on the bureau to decide whether to uphold or depart from the panel’s legal conclusion. If the bureau were to find misconduct of a less serious nature, it could impose sanctions on Khan. A finding of serious misconduct would lead to a plenary ASP vote on the possible removal.

A minority of bureau members have reportedly been pushing for the judicial experts’ report to be set aside and for the bureau to substitute its own conclusions for those of the panel. This would be a precarious step. We are concerned that it would undermine the quality of subsequent decisions in Khan’s case and seriously damage the integrity of the ICC’s governance framework. It would also raise serious questions about the state parties’ credibility and their commitment to the rule of law in governing the court.

This position is consistent with our unequivocal belief that there must be zero tolerance for sexual and other forms of workplace abuse in any organisation — public or private — especially those dedicated to international justice and the fight against impunity for the most serious crimes, and that accountability for any such abuse is non-negotiable.

At the same time, particularly in politically sensitive cases, strict adherence to due process, the highest standards of decision-making, and the rule of law is of paramount importance to prevent ill-founded decisions, political interference, and abuse of power. These convictions are not in tension. For us, the ends do not justify the means.

It is true that the bureau is not legally bound by the panel’s conclusions: the experts performed an advisory function, and their report is not formally binding. Their mandate was to assist the bureau in reaching a credible and well-founded decision on the legal assessment of the factual findings reached in the UN investigative report.

The question before the panel was strictly legal. It was to give a legal characterisation of facts established by UN investigators. Factual findings are distinct from the allegations or the evidence on which they are based, and, as far as can be judged from media reports, the panel did not cross that line.

Diplomats should refrain from assuming the role of judicial experts at this stage, particularly now that such judicial expert advice has been issued. As a political body, the bureau initially recognised that it was not well-placed to make this legal determination on its own — understandably so, given the risks of politicisation of the process and the diminished credibility of any outcome. It mandated a nonpolitical, quasi-judicial body — a panel of judicial experts with relevant subject-matter expertise and experience — to carry out that assessment. This was a sound decision.

The integrity of the court and of the Rome Statute system is at stake as never before. Given the seriousness and complexity of this matter, it was appropriate that the legal assessment be entrusted to an independent and impartial body of judicial experts. In politically charged contexts, such bodies are best placed to assist political decision-makers in reaching conclusions that are both well-founded and credible – and, as much as possible, insulated from political influence.

This is precisely what the bureau set out to achieve. It developed a novel procedure to be applied to this case and itself chose and appointed the judicial experts. As revealed by The New York Times, the panel was composed of three highly regarded senior judges with impeccable track records and experience serving on the highest national and international courts. Tasked with the legal analysis of the UN investigators’ factual findings, it did the job it was meant to do – where such findings had been made.

But now that the process has run its course and the panel has reached its conclusions after three months of intensive work, some states and rights advocates are ready to ignore them because they disagree with the result. Why pursue a quasi-judicial process in the first place if its outcome can so readily be dismissed?

We are convinced that, given the current stage and the nature of the process that was adopted to get there, the panel’s report should be accorded due deference by the bureau and taken seriously, not dismissed lightly, by ICC states. Should states substitute their own conclusions, however, the outcome would be even more problematic than if no panel had been established in the first place.

Disregarding the report will create the impression that the panel was only needed to assist states in reaching one specific conclusion. Can the impression be avoided then that the judicial expert panel’s report has lost all value in the eyes of assembly officials and bureau states, who had devised and supported this process, once its conclusions proved unwelcome? The spectre of a show trial looms large.

Furthermore, if states disagree with the panel, one must ask: based on what factual findings and based on whose legal analysis? The bureau would need a very solid foundation to depart from the judicial experts’ conclusions. But it can realistically neither conduct a follow-up investigation to collect additional evidence and analysis of facts to resolve the remaining uncertainties, nor engage in their legal consideration de novo.

In our view, dismissing the judicial expert report and substituting the bureau’s own judgement would be deleterious to the rule of law, due process, and the integrity of the legal determination as to the existence or otherwise of misconduct by Prosecutor Khan. It would also undermine the authority of the judicial panel mechanism now codified in the ICC rules for any such situations in the future.

Political decision-making should not be allowed to replace and displace a legal assessment carried out in accordance with the highest standards of judicial competence, independence and impartiality, which the political body itself insisted on upholding.

The implication that legal form was used merely as a cover for arbitrary power would be hard to escape. We fear that this would plunge the ICC system deeper into an already existing crisis, without offering the relief some may hope for. The ICC states know full well that this is a cost they cannot afford, particularly at this juncture.

The views expressed in this article are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Morocco believe their successful appeal against their 1-0 defeat by Senegal means the case of the AFCON crown is closed.

Senegal may still possess the Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) trophy and have launched a legal battle against the decision to strip them of it, but as far as new champions Morocco are concerned, the case is closed.

Although the Atlas Lions lost 1-0 in the January final, the Confederation of African Football awarded them a 3-0 victory last week because of several Senegal players leaving the pitch in protest at the award of a penalty.

Morocco drew 1-1 against Ecuador on Friday in a friendly in Madrid, in their first match since the final and the controversial decision to punish Senegal.

It was new coach Mohamed Ouahbi’s first game at the helm, just three months out from the 2026 World Cup.

After becoming the first African side to reach the final four in Qatar in 2022, expectations are high for Morocco, and they are looking to the future, despite Senegal’s outrage.

“We’re focused on what’s to come and not getting into that [topic],” Morocco goalkeeper Yassine Bounou told reporters.

“The answer from us [about whether the decision was fair] would be what our federation said, and that’s all … we’re looking forwards.”

Thousands of Morocco fans, many draped in their country’s flag and tooting vuvuzelas, are convinced justice was served.

“If someone says there are regulations, you have to follow them,” said Yassine el-Aouak, 35, a Morocco supporter who travelled to the game from Italy.

“I think we will bring the trophy home [eventually] – we know that we deserve it.”

Before being awarded victory against Senegal, Morocco had won the Africa Cup of Nations only once, in 1976.

“The rules are the rules … they are so clear, you go outside the pitch without any reason, you lose 3-0,” said another Morocco supporter, Taha El Hadiguy, 22.

“It’s very different to winning on the night of the final, to win two months later, but a win is a win. We have one more star on our shirt.”

Like the players, the Moroccan media was more concerned with the upcoming World Cup and Ouahbi’s tactical approach than whether Senegal are right to feel aggrieved.

Ecuador’s coach Sebastian Beccacece said his were satisfied with a draw against the “African champions”.

Ouahbi’s team are now technically unbeaten in 25 matches, despite falling 1-0 on a dramatic night in Rabat against Senegal in the AFCON final.

They lacked precision in attack against Ecuador, but Ouahbi, who led Moroccan youngsters to Under-20 World Cup glory last year, highlighted the strength of his team.

“I don’t talk in terms of weaknesses. They’re not weaknesses. We are a top-level team – the Ecuadorian coach reminded us of that,” Ouhabi told reporters.

“If you are a top-level team, ranked eighth in the world and World Cup semifinalists, you don’t have weaknesses.

“You only have strengths, and then any qualities we’re missing, areas where we’re not performing, we have to make up for collectively.”

Morocco will face record five-time World Cup winners Brazil in their first game at the tournament this summer on June 13, one of the most intriguing match-ups of the group phase.

Before then, the Moroccan Federation’s lawyers may have to defend their status as African champions against Senegal’s case, but Ouahbi and his players are only looking forward to the summer, when they have a chance to win another trophy, this time on the pitch.

Savannah Guthrie is returning to “Today.”

Viewers of NBC’s morning program learned Friday that Guthrie will be back to her hosting duties at the network’s Rockefeller Plaza studio in New York on April 6.

Guthrie has been absent from “Today” since Feb. 2, the day after learning her mother Nancy was abducted from her Tucson home. She appeared on the program this week in a taped interview with Hoda Kotb, her first since her mother went missing..

Guthrie’s re-entry on “Today” is certain to generate significant viewer interest. Her 84-year-old mother’s case, still being investigated by law enforcement, generated an outpouring of public affection for the co-host.

Many media industry insiders expressed serious doubts over whether Guthrie would return to television before law enforcement determined what happened to Nancy Guthrie. But people close to Guthrie believe her grit and deep religious faith will provide her with the strength to move forward.

Guthrie’s daily presence on “Today” will also help keep her mother’s case in the public eye. NBC is also airing a special “Dateline” episode on the abduction on Friday.

Guthrie has spent most of the last seven weeks in Tucson with her family. She canceled plans to be a part of NBC’s coverage of the Winter Olympics in Milan and before this week only appeared on TV and social media in taped messages asking for the help in finding her mother.

Nancy Guthrie was last seen Jan. 31, when she spent the evening with family members. Law enforcement officials believe she was removed from her Catalina Foothills home later that night against her will as her phone, wallet, car and medication were left behind.

Surveillance videos of a masked man who was outside Guthrie’s front door on the night she disappeared were released by the FBI.

Caracas, March 26, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – US Judge Alvin Hellerstein ruled out dismissing the case against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores in a hearing on Thursday in Brooklyn.

The defense team for Maduro and Flores—who face charges including drug trafficking conspiracy and weapons possession—requested that the case be thrown out after the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) denied them authorization to use Venezuelan state funds to pay for legal counsel. OFAC had initially granted the license on February 9 but revoked it three hours later.

New York Southern District Judge Hellerstein declined to throw out the charges due to the blockaded funds, calling it “a serious step based on hypotheticals.” However, he did not formally rule and left the door open to revisit the decision in the future. 

US Justice Department prosecutor Kyle Wirshba argued that allowing access to Venezuelan state funds would undermine existing sanctions policy, adding that if the defendants are unable to hire private attorneys, court-appointed counsel could be assigned. Maduro attorney Barry Pollack countered that such a measure would violate their Sixth Amendment right to choose their own legal representation.

During the hearing, Hellerstein challenged the prosecutors’ arguments, adding that OFAC’s personal sanctions against Maduro and Flores would also block them from using personal funds. The judge likewise disagreed with the prosecution’s claims that the blocking of funding for the defense was a matter of national security, stating that Maduro and Flores “no longer represent a threat.” 

He further remarked that “things have changed” and that the United States is already “doing business” with Venezuela.

According to observers in the courthouse, Maduro and Flores, both in beige prison uniforms and handcuffed, appeared calm throughout the hearing, using headphones for simultaneous translation. Neither spoke. Observers noted that Maduro appeared thinner. Flores’ attorney, Mark Donnelly, made an urgent request for a medical evaluation, specifically an electrocardiogram, citing a pre-existing condition. The judge approved the request.

Hellerstein will set a new court date in the coming days. Maduro and Flores have not requested bail and were returned to the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn after the hearing.

Maduro and Flores, who is also a lawmaker, were kidnapped by US special forces during a military attack against Caracas on January 3. They pleaded not guilty at their arraignment two days later. Despite recurring “narcoterrorism” accusations over the years, US officials have not presented evidence tying high-ranking Venezuelan leaders to narcotics activities. Specialized agencies have consistently found Venezuela to play a marginal role in global drug trafficking.

Trump calls for additional ‘charges’

Prior to the hearing, US President Donald Trump argued before reporters that additional charges should be brought against the Venezuelan president. 

“He emptied his prisons into our country, and I expect that at some point he will be charged for that,” he said. Trump has repeatedly raised unfounded claims that the Venezuelan government “emptied” prisons and mental institutions into US territory.

Outside the courthouse, a heavy police presence separated Venezuelan opposition supporters from solidarity activists demanding the release of Maduro and Flores and an end to US attacks against the Caribbean nation.

In Caracas, social movements gathered at Plaza Bolívar to express support for the president and first lady. The demonstration followed another mobilization earlier in the week demanding the lifting of US economic sanctions against Venezuela.

Speaking at the rally, lawmaker Nicolás Maduro Guerra—the president’s son and also facing US Justice Department charges—described his father as “a worker” who identifies “as a son of God above any political office.” Days earlier, in a social media post, Maduro Guerra had said his father would appear “in high spirits” and “in good shape” due to regular exercise.

He was joined by Caracas Mayor Carmen Meléndez, while the ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) also called for Maduro’s release in a public statement. 

For her part, Acting President Delcy Rodríguez has yet to comment on Thursday’s hearing. Venezuelan authorities have also not publicly addressed US efforts to block the funding of Maduro and Flores’ legal expenses. 

Since January 3, the Rodríguez administration has led a diplomatic rapprochement with Washington, with several White House officials visiting Venezuela in recent weeks. A Venezuelan government delegation arrived in the US capital on Thursday, led by Vice Minister Oliver Blanco, who reported meetings with State Department officials to boost “mutually beneficial” relations.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

The U.S. can continue to detain immigrants without bond, an appeals court ruled on Wednesday, handing a victory to the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration.

The opinion from a panel of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis overturned a lower court ruling that required that a native of Mexico arrested for lacking legal documents be given a bond hearing before an immigration judge.

It’s the second appeals court to rule in favor of the administration on this issue. The 5th Circuit in New Orleans ruled last month that the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to deny bond hearings to immigrants arrested across the country was consistent with the Constitution and federal immigration law.

Both appeals court opinions counter recent lower court decisions across the country that argued the practice is illegal.

In November, a district court decision in California granted detained immigrants with no criminal history the opportunity to request a bond hearing and had implications for noncitizens held in detention nationwide.

Under past administrations, most noncitizens with no criminal record who were arrested away from the border had an opportunity to request a bond hearing while their cases wound through immigration court. Historically, bond was often granted to those without criminal convictions who were not flight risks, and mandatory detention was limited to recent border crossers.

In the case before the 8th Circuit, Joaquin Herrera Avila of Mexico was apprehended in Minneapolis in August 2025 for lacking legal documents authorizing his admission into the United States. The Department of Homeland Security detained Avila without bond and began deportation proceedings.

He filed a petition seeking immediate release or a bond hearing. A federal judge in Minnesota granted the petition, saying the law authorized detention without bond when a person seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to being admitted. The judge found this was not the case for Avila because he had lived in the country for years without seeking naturalization, asylum or refugee status and thus wasn’t “seeking admission.”

Circuit Court Judge Bobby E. Shepherd wrote for the majority in a 2-1 opinion that the law was “clear that an ‘applicant for admission’ is also an alien who is ‘seeking admission,’” and so Avila couldn’t petition on these grounds.

Circuit Court Judge Ralph R. Erickson dissented, saying that Avila would have been entitled to a bond hearing during his deportation hearings if he had been arrested during the past 29 years. Now, he wrote, the Circuit Court has ruled that Avila and millions of others would be subject to mandatory detention under a novel interpretation of “alien seeking admission” that hasn’t been used by the courts or five previous presidential administrations.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing Avila, didn’t immediately return an email message seeking comment.

Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi hailed the ruling, writing in a social media post: “MASSIVE COURT VICTORY against activist judges and for President Trump’s law and order agenda!”

At question is the issue of whether the government is required to ask a neutral judge to to determine whether it is legal to imprison someone.

It’s based on the habeas corpus, which is a Latin legal term referring to the constitutional right for people to legally challenge their detention by the government.

Immigrants have filed more than 30,000 habeas corpus petitions in federal court alleging illegal detention since Trump took office, according to a tally by the Associated Press. Many have succeeded.

McAvoy writes for the Associated Press.

March 26 (UPI) — A California jury has found Meta and YouTube liable for negligently designing addictive social media platforms that harm children, in a landmark verdict that could have lasting implications for the tech industry.

The Wednesday verdict marks the first time technology companies have been found liable for creating addictive online products, amid increased scrutiny of the industry and a wave of litigation.

“This jury saw exactly what we presented from the very first day of trial: that these companies built digital spaces designed to negatively influence the brains of children, and they did it on purpose,” Mark Lanier, lead trial counsel and founder of The Lanier Law Firm, said in a statement.

“The evidence showed that Meta and YouTube knew their platforms were hooking children and harming their mental health, and instead of fixing the problem they kept developing features to maximize the time kids spent on their apps. Now a jury has told them that is not acceptable, and you are being held accountable.”

UPI has contacted Meta and YouTube for comment.

The verdict follows a seven-week trial centered on a now-20-year-old plaintiff known to the court by her initials K.G.M., who testified that her use of Instagram, owned by Meta, and YouTube, an Alphabet product, from a young age caused her to develop anxiety, depression, body dysmorphia and suicidal thoughts.

During the trial, she testified that the platforms’ addictive design features, including algorithm-generated recommendations, beauty features and push notifications caused her severe mental harm.

“[The plaintiff] put a human face on what these companies have known for years: that their platforms were engineered to hook young users, and that the children most vulnerable to trauma were the ones they were most effectively reaching,” Rachel Lanier, co-lead counsel and managing attorney of The Lanier Law Firm’s Los Angeles office, said in a statement.

In its verdict, the jury found Meta 70% responsible for the harm the plaintiff suffered and YouTube 30% responsible, and ordered the Mark Zuckerberg-owned tech behemoth and Google‘s video-sharing service to pay her a combined $6 million, half for compensatory damages and half for punitive damages.

Of the punitive damages, Meta is to pay $2.1 million and YouTube $900,000.

This was the first trial in a much larger consolidated case involving more than 1,600 plaintiffs seeking to hold social media companies responsible for the harm they suffered from using those products.

“This is a major victory for the public, for social media users and for child safety,” Libby Liu, CEO of nonprofit legal organization Whistleblower Aid, told UPI in an emailed statement.

“Each successful lawsuit paints a crystal clear picture showing that Meta is not above the law and can and should be held accountable.”

The verdict came down a day after a New Mexico jury found Meta liable for misleading consumers about the safety of its products, ordering the company to pay $375 million in civil penalties for violating the state’s consumer protection laws.

During the trial, state prosecutors showed that Meta’s design features enabled predators to engage in child sexual exploitation, while demonstrating that Meta intentionally designed its platforms to addict young people.

Following the verdict in Los Angeles County, New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez, a Democrat, celebrated it as “another critical step toward justice that puts Meta and other big tech executives on notice that they cannot evade responsibility for design choices that jeopardize child safety.”

“We will seek court-mandated changes to Meta’s platforms that offer protections for kids,” he said in a statement.

The rulings come as more attention is being paid to the effects social media has on youth, resulting with Australia in December banning those under the age of 16 from social media, while other countries are considering similar restrictions.

A California jury found ⁠Alphabet’s Google and Meta liable for $3m in damages in a landmark social media addiction lawsuit that accused the companies of being legally responsible for the addictive design of their platforms.

The decision was handed down by a Los Angeles-based jury on Wednesday after more than 40 hours of deliberation across nine days, and more than a month after jurors heard opening statements in the trial.

Among those who testified in the case were Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram head Adam Mosseri, although YouTube chief executive Neal Mohan was not called to testify.

The plaintiff in the case, referred to as KGM or Kaley, was awarded $3m in damages. The 20-year-old said she became addicted to social media at a young age, which exacerbated her mental health issues. She began using YouTube at age six and Meta-owned Instagram at age nine.

Kaley’s legal team alleged that the social media giants used designed features intended to hook young users, including notifications and autoplay features.

“Today’s verdict is a historic moment — for Kaley and for the thousands of children and families who have been waiting for this day. She showed extraordinary courage in bringing this case and telling her story in open court. A jury of Kaley’s peers heard the evidence, heard what Meta and YouTube knew and when they knew it, and held them accountable for their conduct. Today’s verdict belongs to Kaley,” lawyers for the plaintiff said in a statement shared with Al Jazeera.

Jurors were instructed not to consider the content of the posts and videos Kaley saw on the platforms. That is because tech companies are shielded from legal responsibility for user-posted content under Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act.

Meta consistently argued that Kaley had struggled with her mental health separate from her social media use, often pointing to her turbulent home life. Meta also said, “not one of her therapists identified social media as the cause” of her mental health issues in a statement following closing arguments. But the plaintiffs did not have to prove that social media caused Kaley’s struggles — only that it was a “substantial factor” in causing her harm.

YouTube focused less on Kaley’s medical records and mental health history and more on her use of the platform itself. The company argued that YouTube is not a form of social media, but rather a video platform, akin to television, and pointed to her declining use as she got older.

According to company data, she spent about one minute per day on average watching YouTube Shorts since its inception. YouTube Shorts, which launched in 2020, is the platform’s section for short-form, vertical videos that include the “infinite scroll” feature that the plaintiffs argued was addictive.

“We disagree with the verdict and plan to appeal. This case misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site,” Jose Castaneda, a spokesperson for Google, told Al Jazeera.

Meta did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

Snap and TikTok were previously named in the suit but settled with the plaintiff for undisclosed terms before the trial began.

Shifting momentum

The verdict is the latest in a wave of lawsuits targeting social media companies. There is a looming federal social media addiction case slated to begin in June in Oakland, California.

On Tuesday in New Mexico, a jury found that Meta violated state law by misleading users about the safety of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, and by enabling child sexual exploitation on those platforms.

This case has been closely watched by legal experts, who say the verdict will shape future litigation.

“The fact the jury found Meta and Google liable represents that these cases have real exposure to the social media giants, and are going to frame how future litigation will proceed. Although this case will certainly be appealed, I would not be surprised if Meta and Google are already making changes within their platform to reflect the real exposure, and hopefully, the states will start to enact laws regulating social media in a manner congruent with the ruling,” entertainment lawyer Tre Lovell told Al Jazeera.

Professor Eric Goldman, associate dean for research at the Santa Clara University School of Law, echoed Lovell’s assessment.

“The Los Angeles jury verdict is the first of three bellwether trials in Los Angeles, with more bellwether trials to follow in summer, in the federal case. As such, today’s verdict is just one datapoint about liability and damages. The other trials could reach divergent outcomes, so this jury verdict isn’t the final word on any matter.”

Despite the ruling, Meta’s stock has not taken a hit, as it came the same day CEO Mark Zuckerberg was appointed to a new White House advisory council. The stock is up 0.7 percent. Alphabet’s stock, however, is trending downward in midday trading on the heels of the verdict, down 1 percent.

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights set a deadline Tuesday that sounds much like two earlier deadlines, giving San José State University 10 days to comply with a list of athletics-related demands or face enforcement action, including the termination of the university’s federal funding.

This is the third 10-day deadline issued by the OCR to SJSU, the first in January and the second having expired last weekend. All three concern the same case, that of a transgender woman who played on the school’s women’s volleyball team from 2022 to 2024.

A federal investigation was launched in February 2025 after controversy over Blaire Fleming disrupted the 2024 volleyball season. Four Mountain West Conference teams — Boise State, Wyoming, Utah State and Nevada-Reno — chose to forfeit matches to SJSU.

The probe concluded that SJSU’s policies “allowing males to compete in women’s sports and access female-only facilities deny women equal educational opportunities and benefits.”

SJSU pushed back, insisting it followed the law in allowing Fleming to play. SJSU president Cynthia Teniente-Matson wrote in a March 6 letter to the campus community that the university “vigorously disputes the conclusions that OCR reached. … Our position is simple: We have followed the law and cannot be punished for doing so.”

SJSU requested that the OCR rescind its findings and close its investigation. Instead, the federal agency redoubled its efforts, with the latest salvo a “letter of impending enforcement” issued Tuesday and accompanied by a statement from U.S. Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Kimberly Richey.

“We have provided SJSU with multiple opportunities to resolve its Title IX violations with common sense actions: separating male and female athletes based on their biological sex, keeping men out of women’s locker rooms and bathrooms, restoring rightfully earned titles and accolades to female athletes, and apologizing to the women forced to forfeit competitions to protect themselves,” Richey said. “Yet, SJSU remains obstinate, choosing a radical ideology over safety, dignity, and fairness for its own students.

“With today’s action, the Department is putting the university on notice: comply with the law or risk losing its federal funding.”

SJSU enlisted the support of the California State University system, which sued the Department of Education on March 6 to challenge its allegedly “lawless overreach” and block the federal government from cutting funding to SJSU if the school does not agree to a proposed itemized resolution agreement.

“Whether and under what conditions transgender women should be allowed to compete in women’s athletics has been hotly contested,” the CSU lawsuit said. “But this case is not about that issue. It is about the Department’s attempt to punish SJSU, even though the law in the Ninth Circuit has been and is clear. Under Ninth Circuit law, Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause protect transgender students from discrimination.”

Suing the Education Department “is not a step we take lightly,” Teniente-Matson said. “However, we have a responsibility to defend the integrity of our institution and the rule of law, while ensuring that every member of our community is treated fairly and in accordance with the law.”

An estimated two-thirds of SJSU students receive federal financial aid totaling about $130 million annually, according to Cal State University. Losing federal funds could also disrupt $175 million in research.

The Office of Civil Rights’ proposed resolution agreement, which SJSU dismissed out of hand, contains the following demands:

1) Issue a public statement that SJSU will adopt biology-based definitions of the words “male” and “female” and acknowledge that the sex of a human — male or female — is unchangeable.

2) Specify that SJSU will follow Title IX by separating sports and intimate facilities based on biological sex.

3) State that SJSU will not delegate its obligation to comply with Title IX to any external association or entity and will not contract with any entity that discriminates on the basis of sex.

4) Restore to female athletes all individual athletic records and titles misappropriated by male athletes competing in women’s categories, and issue a personalized letter of apology on behalf of SJSU to each female athlete for allowing her participation in athletics to be marred by sex discrimination.

5) Send a personalized apology to every woman who played in SJSU’s women’s indoor volleyball from 2022 to 2024, beach volleyball in 2023, and to any woman on a team that forfeited rather than compete against SJSU while a male student was on the roster — expressing sincere regret for placing female athletes in that position.

In a related lawsuit, a Colorado district judge this month deferred ruling on motions to dismiss former SJSU volleyball player Brooke Slusser’s lawsuit against the California State University system. Slusser alleged that she was made to share bedrooms and changing spaces with Fleming without being informed that Fleming is transgender.

Judge Kato Crews dismissed the Mountain West Conference as a defendant but said he wants to put the rest of the case on hold until after a Supreme Court ruling in B.P.J. v. West Virginia, which is expected to come in June.

The B.P.J. case went to the Supreme Court after a transgender teen sued West Virginia to block a state law that prevents males from competing in girls’ high school sports.

March 24 (UPI) — Former Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin was sentenced to 60 days in jail and a $500 fine after he was found in contempt of court Tuesday.

Matt Bevin was found to be in contempt Friday for not disclosing his financial records in a legal battle with his estranged son Jonah Bevin. Jonah Bevin is fighting for retroactive child support after his adoptive parents allegedly abandoned him.

Jefferson County Family Court Judge Angela Johnson told Bevin: “Your arrest warrant will be issued today,” the Kentucky Lantern reported. Bevin had been ordered to appear in the Louisville court in person, but he appeared via Zoom.

Matt Bevin said he was traveling to attend the funeral of his ex-wife’s father Monday and was on his way back. He appeared to be in an office, but didn’t say where he was, the Lantern reported.

During the hearing, Matt Bevin interrupted Johnson several times. He argued that he was trying to get the information to the court but needed more time to collect records. His ex-wife, Glenna Bevin, didn’t have to appear because she already turned in her financial information.

“Every litigant in the commonwealth has to provide such information,” Johnson told Matt Bevin, the Lantern reported. “I cannot treat Mr. Bevin or Mrs. Bevin any differently.”

Johnson told the former governor that once he produced the records, including tax returns, bank statements and details of assets and income, his jail sentence would be dropped.

On Monday, Matt Bevin filed a motion calling for Johnson to be removed from the case for her “personal bias and prejudice,” the Louisville Courier Journal reported.

The case began when Glenna Bevin filed for divorce in 2023. Jonah Bevin, who is one of four children the Bevins adopted from Ethiopia, intervened demanding child support for time he spent at boarding schools for “troubled teens.” A school in Jamaica was raided by law enforcement over allegations of abuse while he was in its custody. The Bevins did not retrieve him after the school was raided and shut down.

Jonah Bevin’s attorneys said he suffered abuse at those schools and that his high school diploma from a school in Florida may not be valid.

Matt Bevin’s affidavit said some of Johnson’s rulings make it “clear to me that Judge Johnson’s decisions are being motivated by her personal desire for publicity and ‘earned media’ as a government employee who must seek re-election to remain a Circuit Court Judge in the future.”

Johnson will be up for re-election in 2030.

John Helmers and Melina Hettiaratchi, Louisville-based attorneys representing Jonah Bevin, said the judge is asking for what is standard in Kentucky family court cases.

“This judge has done nothing but give him a fair shot. When he refused, she held him in contempt — and he responded by trying to get her thrown out of the game for calling a foul,” The Courier Journal reoported their statement said. “Now that it is crystal clear he is going to have to play by the same rules as everyone else, he’s taking shots at the judge.”

Jonah Bevin said in a statement he now has “no support, no resources, and no ability to wait [Matt Bevin] out while he does everything he can to avoid sitting down with a judge.”

On Friday in court, Matt Bevin said he loves all of his children and wants “what is in their best interest.”

Matt Bevin served as the 62nd governor of Kentucky from 2015 to 2019. He lost to current Gov. Andy Beshear, a Democrat.

A family court trial is scheduled for March 27.

WASHINGTON  — The Trump administration urged the Supreme Court on Tuesday to rule that it may block migrants from applying for asylum at ports of entry along the southern border.

The administration’s lawyers argued that the right to asylum, which arose in response to Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, does not extend to those who are stopped just short of a border post in California, Arizona or Texas.

They pointed to part of the immigration law that says a non-citizen who “arrives in the United States … may apply for asylum.”

“You can’t arrive in the United States while you’re still standing in Mexico. That should be the end of this case,” Vivek Suri, a Justice Department attorney, told the court.

Immigration rights advocates called this claim “perverse” and illogical. They said such a rule would encourage migrants to cross the border illegally rather than present themselves legally at a border post.

The justices sounded divided and a bit uncertain over how to proceed. But the conservative majority is nonetheless likely to uphold the administration’s broad power over immigration enforcement.

Several of the justices noted, however, the Trump administration is not currently enforcing a “remain in Mexico” policy.

Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned why the court would make a major decision on immigration and asylum with no immediate, practical impact.

The case posed a fundamental clash between the government’s need to manage surges at the border and the moral and historic right to offer asylum to those fleeing persecution.

In 1939, more than 900 Jewish refugees who were fleeing Nazi Germany aboard the MS St. Louis were turned away by Cuba and the United States. They were forced to return to Europe and more than 250 of them died in the Holocaust.

The worldwide moral reckoning spurred many nations, including the United States, to adopt new laws which offer protection to those fleeing persecution.

In the Refugee Act of 1980, Congress said that non-citizens either “physically present in the United States” or “at a land border or port of entry” may apply for asylum.

To be eligible for asylum, a non-citizen had to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution in their home country due to their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

Only a small percentage of applicants win their asylum claims, and only after years of litigation.

But faced with overwhelming surge of migrants, the Obama administration in 2016 adopted a “metering” policy that required people to wait on the Mexican side of the border.

The Trump and Biden administrations maintained such policies for a time.

Immigrant rights advocates sued, contending the metering policy was illegal. They won before a federal judge in San Diego who ruled the migrants had a right to claim asylum.

In a 2-1 decision, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed in 2024.

“To ‘arrive’ means ‘to reach a destination,’” Judge Michelle Friedland wrote for the appeals court. “A person who presents herself to an official at the border has ‘arrived.’”

The Trump administration appealed.

Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said the “ordinary meaning of ‘arrives in’ refers to entering a specific place, not just coming close to it. An alien who is stopped in Mexico does not arrive in the United States.”

On Tuesday, the Justice Department attorney said the court should reverse the 9th Circuit and uphold the government’s broad power to block migrants approaching the border.

“I can’t predict the next border surge,” Suri said.

“For more than 45 years, Congress has guaranteed people arriving at our borders the right to seek asylum, consistent with our international treaty obligations,” said Kelsi Corkran, Supreme Court director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, who argued the case. “Yet this administration believes that Congress gave it discretion to completely ignore those requirements, and turn back those who are seeking refuge from persecution at its whim.”

“The people turned away at our border are fleeing rape, torture, kidnapping, and death threats. You cannot tell families running for their lives to go back and wait in danger because their suffering is inconvenient,” said Nicole Elizabeth Ramos, border rights project directo at Al Otro Lado which was the plaintiff in the case. “We brought this case because the United States made a legal and moral commitment to protect people fleeing persecution.”