court

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But the court disagreed.

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

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

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

Aug. 7 (UPI) — Justice Samuel Alito said Friday in a rare interview that he is committed to returning for another term at the Supreme Court.

Speculation that Alito, 76, would retire swelled in June, after NPR mistakenly reported that he planned to step down at the end of this term.

On Friday, the justice put those rumors to bed.

“Obviously I’m here for another term,” Alito told The Wall Street Journal.

“It’s not pleasant, in the sense that it’s a reminder of mortality,” he said to the newspaper about questions related to his retirement.

“It’s like, what are those vultures doing up there?” the justice added. “They are flying around. But it goes with life tenure.”

Alito’s non-retirement was reported by NPR reporter Nina Totenberg, a veteran of Supreme Court coverage, on June 30.

NPR retracted the story later that same day.

Totenberg said she heard a retirement announcement while rushing out of the courtroom and mistakenly assumed it was Alito.

She called it “the worst professional mistake of my more than 50 years in journalism.”

Alito, a staunch conservative, was appointed by President George W. Bush and joined the court in 2006.

A federal appeals court has ordered President Donald Trump’s administration to halt construction on a $400 million ballroom project at the White House. President Trump has vowed to appeal to the US Supreme Court. Aljazeera’s Mike Hanna reports.

President Trump targeted birthright citizenship again Thursday by signing a pair of executive orders purporting to narrow it — including by cracking down on “birth tourism” and limiting which children born to immigrants in the U.S. qualify.

The new orders follow a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that rejected an attempt by Trump to end birthright citizenship outright.

During a signing ceremony in the Oval Office, Trump called that decision by the high court “very unfair” and said the new orders were an attempt to end birthright citizenship by other means.

“Our country suffers because of it, and we’re ending it a different way,” he said.

Trump promised “big crackdowns” on birth tourism, or the practice of pregnant foreign mothers coming to the United States, or foreign fathers using surrogates already in the U.S., specifically to ensure their children receive U.S. citizenship.

Trump said an entire industry has been built up around the practice, turning birthright citizenship into “a joke.”

“Wealthy people are building businesses around birthright citizenship. That’s not the way it’s supposed to work. It’s a disgrace,” he said. “They’re buying their way in, and we’re not going to let it happen.”

The orders were immediately criticized by proponents of birthright citizenship as an indefensible attempt by the president and his administration to make an end run around the Supreme Court’s clear finding that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution cannot be undone by the president.

The amendment reads in part, “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.”

In an apparent response to the president’s new orders, California Gov. Gavin Newsom posted that exact language to the social media platform X. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) also responded on the platform, writing, “Trump doesn’t understand the Constitution — but the 14th Amendment’s promise of birthright citizenship and equality speaks for itself.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement that Trump’s “continued crusade to end birthright citizenship is blatantly illegal,” that Democrats would challenge the orders, and that the president had “set himself up for yet another loss in the courts.”

“If you are born in America, you are American — period. The Constitution says it and the Supreme Court has affirmed it,” Schumer said.

A spokesperson for California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office, which successfully sued alongside other Democrat-led states to block Trump’s first order purporting to end birthright citizenship, said attorneys there were reviewing the latest orders late Thursday.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which also sued to block the first order, denounced the new orders — and predicted they, too, would fall.

“The Supreme Court already decided this issue: Birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Constitution. No additional executive order can change the meaning of the Constitution,” Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in a statement. “Any executive order that tries to rewrite birthright citizenship will meet the same fate as the last one.”

Trump’s order on birth tourism defines the practice as “the entry of any foreign national into the United States via a nonimmigrant visa for the purpose of giving birth on American soil,” or “any effort by any foreign national to facilitate” such entry.

It orders the Homeland Security and State departments to ramp up controls to block such entries, including through the denial or revocation of visas and other travel authorizations for individuals suspecting of participating in such efforts.

“Foreign nationals seeking temporary admission into the United States must adhere to the purposes for which the Congress has authorized their temporary admission, and cannot be permitted to circumvent the immigration laws in an attempt to vest themselves and their children with lasting benefits that are irreconcilable with their nonimmigrant status,” the order reads.

The order purporting to limit which children born in the U.S. are eligible for birthright citizenship describes “certain categories of children” who it says “do not fall within the rule of birthright citizenship as announced by the Supreme Court.”

It orders U.S. agencies not to provide citizenship documents to any child whose parents are not citizens if either of their parents is a foreign government employee, ambassador or a member of a foreign terrorist organization; was “engaged in a commercial transaction to purchase or access birthright citizenship” for them or to ensure their mother was in the U.S. when she gave birth to them; or had paid for a surrogate in the U.S. to give birth to them.

Echoing arguments made before the Supreme Court in defense of Trump’s first order purporting to end birthright citizenship, Trump and other White House officials claimed on Thursday that birthright citizenship was only ever intended for the children of slaves.

“This was done right after the Civil War. This was for the babies of slaves,” Trump said.

Others have said that argument “disregards the historical record” — which clearly shows lawmakers understood that the amendment’s language was much broader than that.

White House officials said the orders would prevent a large number of children from receiving birthright citizenship, hailing it as momentous.

“It ends what has been one of the gravest and most egregious abuses of the American system, and it keeps American citizenship safe,” said Stephen Miller, one of Trump’s top advisors on immigration.

Asked if the new orders would withstand judicial scrutiny, Trump predicted they would, before directing the question to White House staff secretary Will Scharf.

“What we’re doing is taking legally validated means that are clearly within our disposal and targeting them square on to this birth tourism industry,” Scharf said. “There’s absolutely nothing in here that runs afoul of any of the Supreme Court’s opinions on the subject.”

Vice President JD Vance also hailed the move.

“Our immigration system has been exploited by those who treat citizenship as a commercial transaction, not a sacred bond. President Trump is taking bold steps to combat birth tourism and restore our sovereignty. A serious nation owes its citizens nothing less,” he wrote on X.

In its 6-3 decision in June, the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s first order purporting to end birthright citizenship outright, finding that the 14th Amendment — with very few exceptions — provided a right to children born in the U.S. that could not be undone by the president.

“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts wrote for the court. “The Framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.”

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined Roberts in full, with Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh concurring with the outcome based on separate federal law. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented.

The ruling was a major defeat for Trump, and was cheered by immigrant rights advocates, including many in California, as the final say on the matter — though Trump signaled almost immediately that the fight wasn’t over.

A federal judge blasted KTLA-TV Channel 5’s owner, the Texas-based Nexstar Media Group, on Thursday for violating a court order and for failing to disclose key information.

U.S. District Judge Troy L. Nunley found that Nexstar’s actions violated terms of an April preliminary injunction that was designed to prevent the media company from moving forward with its $6.2-billion takeover of rival TV station group Tegna Inc. and meddling with its management.

The judge called Nexstar’s actions “brazen.” He demanded the company begin submitting monthly reports and said a special master would be appointed to help manage the antitrust case and monitor Nexstar for compliance.

And Tegna’s recently constituted board — filled with high-level Nexstar officials — must be dissolved.

A Nexstar spokesman wasn’t immediately available for comment.

Nexstar unveiled its Tegna takeover a year ago. At the time, TV stations were lobbying the Federal Communications Commission to relax station ownership rules, a move that occurred Thursday in a split decision.

Last spring, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and seven other state attorneys general challenged Nexstar’s proposed acquisition, alleging the roll-up of more than 250 local TV stations would violate a U.S. antitrust law intended to protect consumers and competitive markets.

Bonta and other plaintiff states argued the consolidation would lead to local newsrooms shuttering, particularly in smaller markets, such as Sacramento and Indianapolis, where Nexstar would own multiple network affiliates.

Despite Bonta’s lawsuit, Nexstar hurried the next day to finalize its purchase of Virginia-based Tegna and swallow the operation. Tegna disbanded, its shareholders were paid and top Tegna executives exited.

Nunley, who is based in Sacramento, is overseeing the case. He initially issued a restraining order, followed by a more lengthy preliminary injunction that ordered Nexstar to halt its integration while the court case was pending.

Tegna should continue to operate as a separate business unit — free from the influence of Nexstar, the judge ruled.

But on the day that Nunley issued the restraining order, Nexstar formed a new Tegna board filled with Nexstar officers, including Chief Executive Perry Sook, Chief Financial Officer Lee Ann Gliha, and later Mike Biard, a former Fox executive who joined Nexstar in 2023 as chief operating officer.

Nexstar countered that while Nunley’s order said Nexstar employees were restricted from serving as “officers,” it didn’t expressly say they couldn’t serve on Tegna‘s board as “directors.”

“Defendants cannot convincingly argue that having Nexstar executives serve on TEGNA’s Board complies with the preliminary injunction,” Nunley wrote in Thursday’s order, adding that Nexstar’s position was “entirely disingenuous.”

Nexstar now must dissolve the board.

“It is shocking that Defendants think installing a Board of Directors comprised primarily of Nexstar executives would not create influence over Tegna management,” Nunley wrote.

He also admonished Nexstar for not providing that information in any of the hearings or in its filings with the court. “Defendants have a duty of candor to the Court under California Rule of Professional Conduct,” Nunley wrote.

His order was designed “to preserve Tegna as a separate and distinct, independently managed business unit from Nexstar,” Nunley wrote. “Nexstar’s control of the Tegna Board will undoubtedly allow it to influence Tegna’s management and obtain access to Tegna’s confidential information.”

Bonta, in a statement, said: “We thank the court for its attention to this matter and look forward to arguing our case and blocking this merger.”

Aug. 5 (UPI) — Social media platform X said it was challenging a Turkish court order to restrict access to the official presidential candidacy office account of jailed Istanbul Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu.

X’s global government affairs team said in a Tuesday statement that the order requires the platform to block the account in Turkey while leaving it accessible to the rest of the world.

“Although Turkey’s laws force us to comply with the order, we are challenging the order in court and, in the spirit of full transparency, are sharing the court order,” the team said, adding that it is challenging the order “because we believe keeping the platform accessible in Turkey is vital to supporting freedom of expression and access to information.”

Not complying with the order could trigger “severe sanctions,” according to X, including throttling the entire platform in Turkey.

According to the order shared by X, the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office was investigating allegations of of public disseminating misleading information.

“As a result of open-source research, it was determined that the account identified below had shared content alleged to constitute the offense under investigation and that the content was of a nature capable of disturbing public peace,” the document said. The content in question was not specified.

Though the election is not scheduled until 2028, Imamoglu is widely seen as the main political rival of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s increasingly authoritarian president, who has been in office for nearly 12 years, after previously serving as prime minister for 11 years.

Imamoglu’s presidential candidacy office X account was created in November 2025 and has more than 225,700 followers.

Access to his personal account, which has more than 9.4 million followers, was restricted in May 2025.

Turkish authorities detained Imamoglu and more than 100 people on March 19, 2025. He was formally arrested and remanded in custody four days later on suspicion of unlawfully recording personal data, accepting bribes, rigging tenders conducted by public institutions and establishing an organization for the purpose of committing crimes.

Prosecutors allege that an organization led by Imamoglu defrauded public institutions of about $3.9 billion since 2015. If convicted, he faces 1,929 years in prison.

Imamoglu and his Republican People’s Party have denied the allegations.

Human Rights Watch has described his initial detention as “a politically motivated move to stifle lawful political activities.”

Luka Doncic‘s former fiancée, Anamaria Goltes, requested Monday that the petition for child support she filed in March in Los Angeles Superior Court be dismissed, according to court documents obtained by The Times.

“I am withdrawing my Petition for Child Support with the specific intention of resolving this matter amicably and by a mutual agreement which is in the best interests of our children,” Goltes wrote in the filing.

The Lakers superstar proposed to Goltes, a fashion and fitness model, three years ago. They met as children in their native Slovenia and started dating as teenagers in 2016. Their daughters — Gabriela, 2, and Olivia, seven months — live with Goltes in Slovenia.

Doncic has spent the offseason in Slovenia and will host a four-day minicamp for the entire Lakers team later this month in his hometown of Ljubljana, which will include workouts, golf and sightseeing ahead of training camp. The guard — who led the NBA in scoring with an average of 33.5 points a game last season — even offered to pay the team’s travel costs.

Goltes, 28, sought child support and attorney fees from Doncic, 27, following an incident that occurred shortly after Olivia was born at Kranj Maternity Hospital on Dec. 6, 2025, in Slovenia. Doncic missed games against the Toronto Raptors and Boston Celtics to be present at the birth.

Goltes objected to Doncic’s desire to bring Gabriela back to the United States with him when he joined the Lakers in Philadelphia to play the 76ers on Dec. 7. Goltes called the police, but officers “did not detect any elements of a criminal offense or misdemeanor,” according to a report viewed by ESPN.

The couple broke off their engagement shortly thereafter. Goltes deleted photos of her and Doncic from her Instagram account and Doncic acknowledged that they had separated. He filed an injunction with a Slovenian court in February seeking immediate contact with his daughters, ESPN reported.

“I love my daughters more than anything, and I’ve been doing everything I can for them to be with me in the U.S. during the season, but that hasn’t been possible, so I recently made the tough decision to end my engagement,” Doncic said in March. “Everything I do is for my daughters’ happiness, and I will always fight to be with them and give them the best life I can.”

Doncic posted a photo on social media of Olivia wearing a pink sweater with a heart emoji covering her face. In his first game back, he inscribed a G and O with a heart on his shoes.

“I got to see my daughter again, my newborn,” he said upon his return. “Coming back, it was kind of hard to leave them behind. But it’s a job, so I got to do it.”

A US federal appeals court says EPA likely acted unlawfully in trying to cancel Biden-era clean energy grants.

A United States federal appeals court has ruled that the Trump administration likely broke the law when it tried to cancel a multibillion-dollar clean energy programme, dealing a blow to the president’s broader push to dismantle Biden-era climate policies.

The full US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled on Tuesday that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cannot freeze roughly $20bn in grants awarded to nonprofit groups for clean energy projects, reversing an earlier decision by the same court.

But the money will not be released immediately. The ruling has been temporarily put on hold to give the EPA time to ask the US Supreme Court to intervene.

At the centre of the dispute is the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, a programme created by Congress through former US President Joe Biden’s 2022 Inflation Reduction Act.

The programme, often referred to as a “green bank”, was designed to give federal money to nonprofit organisations that would give out loans and invest in small energy projects, energy-efficient buildings and clean-energy infrastructure.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has been trying to dismantle the programme, saying it doesn’t align with his agency’s priorities and accusing its recipients of fraud, waste and mismanagement.

In a video posted on social media last February, Zeldin described the fund as an example of government waste.

“Shockingly, roughly $20bn of your tax dollars were parked at an outside financial institution by the Biden EPA,” he said. “This pot of $20bn was awarded to just eight entities that were then responsible for doling out your money to NGOs and others at their discretion.”

“The days of irresponsibly shovelling boatloads of cash to far-left activist groups in the name of environmental justice and climate equity are over,” he added.

The following month, the EPA froze billions of dollars that were being held at Citibank to be distributed as grants.

The organisations, which included the Climate United Fund, Coalition for Green Capital and three others, denied any wrongdoing and sued, arguing the administration was illegally withholding money already approved by Congress and attempting to kill the programme because it opposed its climate goals, not because of evidence of fraud.

Tuesday’s decision overturns a ruling by a three-judge panel of the same appeals court last September that sided with the administration. The full appeals court agreed to revisit that decision, a rare move reserved for significant cases.

The majority of judges said the EPA’s attempt to terminate the grants and claw back the money “based solely on a policy disagreement” likely violated the Inflation Reduction Act. It also said the agency hadn’t provided assurance that it would leave the funds untouched if the injunction were lifted.

The ruling restores an order issued last year by US District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who found the EPA had failed to justify cancelling the grants and warned the administration was encroaching on Congress’s power to decide how federal money is spent.

The case is one of several legal challenges to US President Donald Trump’s efforts to reverse Biden’s climate agenda. Since returning to office, Trump has rolled back environmental regulations, expanded support for fossil fuel production and sought to unwind clean energy initiatives, arguing they impose unnecessary costs on businesses and consumers.

GATWICK Airport is set to get a second runway by the end of the decade.

Plans for the new runway have received a huge boost today, after campaigner against the plans lost their bid to challenge it.

The airport expansion was approved back in September and is set to cost £2.2billion.

It will involve moving the airport’s emergency runway 12 metres north and as a result, the airport will be able to host an extra 100,000 flights a year.

The new runway is set to have planes taking off by the end of the decade.

In a ruling on Tuesday, Lord Justice Holgate and Lord Justice Dove dismissed campaigners’ bids against the new runway.

Read more on travel inspo

GO ON

All the little-known websites for cheap or FREE tickets to gigs, theatre & festivals

TRAVEL TIP

The £2.99 SIM hack that can save Brits HUNDREDS abroad

They said: “We conclude that each of the grounds of appeal raised by each appellant is unarguable.

“Neither appeal has a real prospect of success. We also consider that there are no other compelling reasons for either appeal to be heard.”

Gatwick Airport is the second busiest airport in the UK and has one of the busiest runways in the world.

The runway will be used mainly for more narrow-bodied planes, such as Airbus A320s and Boeing 737s.

Campaigners argued that the Government has not properly assessed the climate impact of an additional runway.

They also commented that there is no need for an expansion at Gatwick Airport, considering Heathrow is not too far away.

California filed two lawsuits against the Trump administration Monday — one to block President Trump’s latest round of tariffs on international trading partners, the other to block his administration from sharing needy families’ personal data with immigration officials.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, whose office brought the lawsuits alongside other Democratically led states, said they were both intended to rein in a lawless president pushing policies that threaten American families already struggling to afford basic necessities.

Bonta said the new tariffs are part of a “failed and illegal economic policy” that has previously been blocked in court. He alleged that the proposed data sharing was part of a broader and illegal “mass surveillance effort” by the Trump administration to target its political opponents.

The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the two lawsuits. But it has previously defended both tariffs and data-sharing policies as part of Trump’s “America first” agenda to improve the economic standing of American families.

Trump has defended his tariffs, and a previous set that was ruled illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court, as necessary to fix years of unfair trading practices in which international partners took advantage of the U.S. However, many economists have determined that the cost of the tariffs are being passed on to U.S. consumers and contributing to the persistent inflation causing economic pain nationwide.

Trump, the White House and top officials in his administration have also defended the sharing of personal data among U.S. agencies, and from individual states to the federal government, as a commonsense way to reduce waste and fraud and to identify and remove people who are in the country illegally and consuming benefits intended for American families.

The administration has previously sought the personal data of Medicaid recipients, SNAP food assistance recipients, immigrants who have filed taxes with the Internal Revenue Service and registered voters in states across the country. All of those demands have also been challenged in court, with varying degrees of success.

Bonta’s office has now filed 82 lawsuits against the current Trump administration.

Tariff lawsuit

Trump’s latest tariffs, levies of between 10% and 12.5%, took effect late last month and apply to more than 80 countries, including some of the closest U.S. allies and largest trading partners such as Canada, Mexico and the European Union. They followed a Trump administration announcement of new 50% tariffs on many Canadian products, set to go into effect this month.

“Tariffs are taxes, and the American people cannot and should not shoulder the extra costs that come from the president’s failed and illegal economic policy — no matter how much the president wants them to,” Bonta said in announcing the lawsuit in the U.S. Court of International Trade.

Two previous attempts by the Trump administration to unilaterally levy tariffs on trading partners were rejected by the courts in the face of similar legal challenges by California and other states. In February, the Supreme Court rejected a sweeping slate of tariffs Trump had imposed on an emergency basis. In May, the Court of International Trade turned back another set.

The Trump administration has said the president’s latest tariffs are authorized by a separate law not considered in the previous litigation — one related to combating forced labor in global trade.

The states’ lawsuit argued that the reliance on labor law was simply a “guise” used by Trump to impose new tariffs, and that “there is no rational fit between the purported problem of forced labor in international supply chains and the blanket global tariffs” imposed.

Bonta brought the case alongside the attorneys general or governors of 24 other states.

Data-sharing lawsuit

California joined a similar coalition of Democrat-led states to file a lawsuit challenging the sharing of needy families’ data, in federal court in Washington, D.C.

The lawsuit challenges a notice the Trump administration issued last month announcing the Administration of Children and Families would begin sharing the personal information of recipients in the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program to outside agencies — including with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which houses Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other immigration enforcement units.

A spokesperson for the Administration for Children and Families said it does not comment on ongoing litigation.

The program provides $16 billion in grants annually to the states, which use it to provide cash assistance to low-income families. Some 350,000 families in California receive support through the program each month, Bonta’s office said.

Bonta said the sharing of program data with Homeland Security would be a clear violation of the law establishing the fund.

“The Trump Administration is exploiting a program designed to ensure children do not go hungry and to help needy families get back on their feet in order to fuel its mass surveillance effort. It’s cruel, unnecessary, and illegal,” Bonta said in a statement.

During a morning news conference, Bonta said one of his concerns is that immigration officials will use data to target the undocumented parents of U.S. citizen children who are legitimately receiving assistance through the program.

“They’re seeking Social Security information, marital status, income information,” he said. “We think that they might be interested in that information to potentially target parents.”

He said he also believes the data sharing is part of a much broader effort by the Trump administration to gather up as much data as possible in order to target individuals who do not conform with the administration’s political agenda, including on immigration policy and on issues such as abortion and gender-affirming care.

“While the Trump Administration continues to break the law in order to amass an ever-greater trove of people’s personal information, we’ll continue stepping in to protect the privacy of our people,” Bonta said.

The lawsuit is just the latest in a much broader legal war over the Trump administration’s drive to force all kinds of federal and state social services and financial programs to share the personal data of benefit recipients and other program users.

California is fighting alongside other states in court to block the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from sharing personal data of Medicaid recipients with Homeland Security, though some of that data have already been shared.

California is also fighting alongside other states in court to block the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s demand that states turn over the personal data of millions of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, recipients. The demand came with a threat from USDA that it would cut off funding to states that don’t comply. Courts have blocked the suspension of funds, but some data have been shared.

Immigrant rights groups, including Los Angeles-based Inclusive Action for the City, are also suing to block a Trump administration plan to share IRS taxpayer data with Homeland Security. The Trump administration has said the data sharing would be used to target only criminals, but immigrant rights advocates have denounced it as an attempt to do just the opposite — to target immigrants who have been in the country and paid taxes for years.

WASHINGTON  — California and 22 other Democratic-led states urged the Supreme Court on Monday to block President Trump’s plan to take control of voting by mail through the U.S. Postal Service.

They said it is too late in the election year to impose a new set of regulations for mail ballots.

Doing so, they said, would lead to mistakes, including eligible and registered voters being told they are not on the federal government’s approved list.

“Because of the high risk of errors and the limited window for correcting mistakes, many of the millions of voters who rely on mail voting — especially voters with disabilities and those in rural areas — would likely be denied mail ballots and disenfranchised,” they told the court.

More broadly, they argued that the Constitution “entrusted the states and Congress — not the president — with the responsibility to set rules for federal elections.”

The justices are likely to act in a few days on whether to allow the Trump administration‘s plan to proceed pending the adoption of new and detailed guidelines.

Last week, Trump Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer sent an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court contending judges in Boston moved too quickly to halt the administration’s new federal restrictions on voting by mail.

He argued judges should stand back for now, even though the midterm elections are only three months away.

Trump’s executive order required the U.S. Postal Service to use state-by-state lists of eligible voters who may send a ballot by mail.

Until now, states have had the constitutional authority to register voters for federal and state elections. And nearly a third of Americans now vote by mail.

Trump, however, has insisted that voting by mail leads to fraud, including by allowing noncitizens to vote.

Congress has refused to adopt new voting restrictions at Trump’s behest.

Instead, he issued an executive order on March 31 to enlist the Postal Service and the Department of Homeland Security to ensure “citizenship verification and integrity in federal elections.”

The order called on Homeland Security to compile state-by-state lists of citizens who are eligible to vote. And it told the postal service that it must use those lists to restrict who may vote by mail.

“The USPS shall not transmit mail-in or absentee ballots from any individual unless those individuals have been enrolled on a State-specific list,” the order said.

But a federal judge and the 1st Circuit Court in Boston ruled Trump’s new regulations may not be enforced this year, at least in the 23 Democratic-led states which sued.

On Monday, they told the court that USPS delivered nearly 100 million mail ballots to or from voters in 2024, with roughly 30% of all voters nationwide casting ballots by mail.

Israel’s highest court heard a constitutional challenge to legislation banning UNRWA’s operations in Israel. Supporters said the laws are necessary for national security, while rights advocates argued they jeopardise access to aid and basic services for millions of Palestinians.

Chris Young grew up in Clarksville, Tenn., in the direst imaginable circumstances — unimaginable, in fact, to many of us.

He never knew his father. His mother was a crack addict with a habit of stabbing her romantic partners. While his mom was in prison, Young and his older brother, Robert, mostly fended for themselves, often in a home that lacked electricity and running water. Young, tormented by sickle-cell disease, saw many of those closest to him die by homicide or suicide.

The two boys weren’t totally bereft. They had a grandfather, cousins, friends and a stepfather. A neighbor provided showers, until his water bill got too high; another supplied hot meals. A woman known as Big Mama offered shelter and tough love. But it wasn’t nearly enough. Desperate for money, the teenage Young — smart, entrepreneurial, dreaming of a rap career — became a gun-toting drug dealer.

Young’s searing memoir, “The Wound Is Where the Light Enters,” chronicles this bitter childhood and its devastating consequences. The evocative title is a quotation from the 13th century Persian poet Rumi.

Unlike some prison memoirs, this isn’t an innocence story. But it is no less an indictment of the U.S. justice system — its laws, its courts and its brutal prisons. “The constant state of heightened agitation and awareness that it takes to survive a single day in a federal penitentiary is enough to drive a man insane,” Young writes. “At every turn, the system is designed to crush your humanity. You’re an animal in there and are expected to act like one.”

But not everyone does. “The Wound Is Where the Light Enters” not only reveals the system’s horrors, but also celebrates the redemptive power of hope, intellect and community.

By the time Young was swept up in a federal drug investigation, he already had two felony drug convictions. His involvement in the federal conspiracy case, as he tells it, was marginal. He was no kingpin and had never met most of the people being charged.

But he faced a zealous prosecutor, with only court-appointed attorneys at his side. Worse yet, he was up against a harsh “three-strikes” law that replaced judicial discretion with mandatory minimum sentences.

Young’s own pride and sense of justice also came into play. He could have pleaded guilty, perhaps even cooperated, and received a finite (though still hefty) prison sentence. Instead, determined to argue his case, he opted for a trial at which conviction was all but certain. Then, against advice, he presented a meticulously crafted and rehearsed speech at his sentencing hearing.

The 26-year-old Young, who’d already spent four years behind bars, had used that time productively. A former straight-A student who had dropped out of high school, he had embarked on a program of self-education, reading deeply in African American history, Greek philosophy, finance and other subjects. “Every day,” he writes, “I left the library with new language to put to my thoughts.”

Young told the court about his chaotic upbringing and his recent scholarly pursuits. “He spoke of the things he could do if he did not have to die in prison. He told me of the possibilities that would never be,” the trial judge, Kevin H. Sharp, writes in the book’s foreword. “It was impossible to listen to someone so full of compassion, intelligence, and, above all, promise, and not question the system that had not just allowed this to happen but required it.”

Sharp sentenced Young to life without the possibility of parole, as the law mandated. But two years later, he stepped down from the bench and joined Young’s defense team.

Young describes his childhood mostly from the perspective of a boy — alternately bewildered, hurting, depressed and “mad all the time.” His account of his incarceration, with its mind-numbing routines, gang hegemony and intermittent violence, is equally gripping.

At McCreary, the tense high-security federal prison in Kentucky known as Misery Mountain, Young meditated, adhered to a workout routine, read prodigiously, taught GED classes to fellow inmates and maintained ties to his few surviving loved ones. And he kept hoping. “The system’s control over my body was absolute,” Young writes. “Its control over my mind was not.”

In 2015, the sickle cell-related disintegration of his hips prompted Young’s transfer to a low-security prison, Federal Medical Center Lexington. Here the surroundings are less bleak, the library better, the prisoners friendlier. Young teaches himself to code and envisions an app that will focus on mental health and suicide prevention. Yet he still must fight to obtain the hip replacement surgery he so desperately needs.

By now, his case has attracted sympathetic press attention and more effective lawyers. Even so, his story takes a dark turn. From Lexington, he is sent to his most terrifying prison yet, known as Bloody Beaumont, where COVID-19 adds another layer of threat. A judge reduces his sentence, but, for reasons never entirely clear, he is suddenly thrown into the prison’s “hole,” its barbarous solitary confinement cells.

It is from that hell that Young, more than a decade after his arrest, emerges to freedom — earning a degree in economics and public policy from Southern Methodist University, pursuing a consulting career and writing this indelible book. For his 2021 grant of executive clemency, he has his lawyers and reality-TV star Kim Kardashian to thank — as well as President Trump.

Klein, a cultural reporter and critic in Philadelphia, has been a three-time finalist for the National Book Critics Circle’s Nona Balakian Citation for Excellence in Reviewing.

TOPEKA, Kan. — Kansas voters will decide Tuesday whether to elect state Supreme Court justices rather than have the governor appoint them, a push from conservatives who have chafed for years over court decisions they disagreed with on issues such as abortion, school funding and the death penalty.

If the constitutional amendment passes, supporters hope to elect at least four conservative, antiabortion justices to the seven-member court by 2033.

Kansas is considering the change amid concerns that increasingly contentious and expensive judicial elections in other states are making their courts more partisan and less independent. Spending in a single state Supreme Court race in Wisconsin last year topped $100 million.

Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly, a term-limited Democrat who opposes the measure, said gerrymandering and dark money have put the Legislature out of step with the state’s voters, and “to think you can make the judicial branch a part of that dysfunctional system is frightening.”

Rulings the GOP dislikes

GOP lawmakers cite rulings by Kansas courts over the last two decades as reasons a change is needed.

Most recently, a district court judge in July reinstated a three-day grace period for voters to return mail ballots after election day, which GOP lawmakers had eliminated. Kansas Senate President Ty Masterson, who is seeking the Republican nomination for governor, called the decision “outrageous” and urged people to vote yes on the ballot question.

The same judge — a finalist to fill the most recent Supreme Court vacancy — blocked enforcement of a 2025 law banning gender-affirming care for transgender minors. Masterson described him as “radical.”

The list of rulings Republicans criticize also includes rulings on education funding back to 2004. Supreme Court decisions forced lawmakers to increase funding to comply with the state constitution.

“If we elect our Supreme Court, they won’t force you to spend money on schools,” Masterson said in remarks in November to a conservative group, the Marion County Patriots for Liberty, the Marion County Record reported.

Abortion remains a key issue

Electing state Supreme Court justices gained currency among Republicans after a 2022 public vote affirming the high court’s landmark 2019 decision that Kansas’ Bill of Rights guarantees bodily autonomy and access to abortion. Total spending by both sides has exceeded $12 million.

Legislators who worked to overturn the Supreme Court’s protections, including Masterson, helped write this proposal.

Seven weeks after that 2022 vote, state Atty. Gen. Kris Kobach, then a GOP candidate for the office, told a Republican club in Wichita that electing justices would “slowly and quietly” put antiabortion justices on the high court.

The vote-yes campaign’s biggest donor — providing $1.7 million toward the campaign’s $3.7 million in spending — is a Nashville-based nonprofit that supports Republican candidates, groups and causes. Kansans for Life, the state’s most influential antiabortion group, has spent at least $87,000 in a recent 11-day span on mailers and texts.

“Kansans can bring an end to this reign of abortion by voting ‘yes,’” Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue, said in an editorial written by a staffer on the antiabortion group’s website.

Meanwhile, the national and state affiliates for abortion provider Planned Parenthood contributed $1.6 million toward the vote-no campaign’s $8 million-plus in spending.

Jamie Swan, an engineer and college teaching assistant who knocked on doors for abortion rights in 2022, is doing the same to try to halt the proposal.

“I really believe that this is just a power grab,” she said.

Legislators have no say in appointments

Backers of the Kansas proposal brush aside arguments that electing the justices will give wealthy donors control over the Supreme Court.

“Globally and over history, even in its imperfection, the best system is democracy,” said Elizabeth Patton, state director of the low-tax, small-government group Americans for Prosperity, which has spent $935,000 to promote the vote-yes campaign.

Twenty-two states elect their top court’s judges, eight in partisan races. Governors in 26 states appoint them. In South Carolina and Virginia, legislators pick the justices.

Kansas elected justices for nearly 100 years before voters amended the state constitution in 1958. The governor now picks one of three finalists named by a nominating commission controlled by attorneys. Legislators have no role.

A review of every state’s current and past constitutions shows that the last state to add an amendment like the one Kansas is contemplating was Mississippi in 1914. Since then, 18 states’ amendments went the opposite way.

Voters weigh in every six years on whether a justice remains on the bench through a yes-or-no ballot question, but they’ve never booted a sitting justice. Conservatives say that means justices face no consequences for errant decisions.

Retirements and deaths on the bench allowed Kelly to appoint four of the current justices. Recently, the governor picked a district court judge who blocked enforcement of long-standing abortion restrictions in 2023.

“We don’t have a good way to fight back,” said state Sen. Mike Thompson, a conservative Kansas City-area Republican, who backs the measure.

Hanna writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas publicly praised Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and his philosophy of black empowerment eight years ago, but the embattled judge said Friday that he “repudiates” the anti-Semitic views later attributed to Farrakhan.

“I cannot leave standing any suggestion that I am anti-Semitic,” Thomas said in a prepared statement. “I am and have always been unalterably and adamantly opposed to anti-Semitism and bigotry of any kind, including by Louis Farrakhan.”

Disclosures that Farrakhan was praised in two speeches prepared for delivery by Thomas to black organizations in 1983 prompted expressions of concern from leading Jewish organizations and raised new questions about the beliefs of the conservative black jurist. The Farrakhan material was actually delivered in only one speech.

Since President Bush nominated him two weeks ago to replace retiring Justice Thurgood Marshall, the Supreme Court’s only black and its leading liberal voice, Thomas has come under increasing criticism for his views on civil rights and other issues.

At the time of Thomas’ speeches in 1983, Farrakhan was a relatively unknown Chicago preacher who had yet to attain national notoriety for his militancy and anti-Semitic views.

Thomas, who currently sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, opposes affirmative action and other race-based remedies for discrimination long favored by civil rights organizations and many members of Congress.

On Thursday, the Congressional Black Caucus registered its opposition to Thomas, saying it was concerned about his commitment to civil rights. Although the House members who belong to the caucus will play no direct role in the Senate confirmation process, their opposition could prompt other black organizations to coalesce against Thomas.

The list of groups expressing reservations about Thomas was joined Friday by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the nation’s largest public employee union. It urged the Senate Judiciary Committee to reject Thomas, saying that he “lacks the judicial experience necessary” to serve on the high court and has exhibited a “lack of commitment to equal justice and fundamental rights.”

Thomas has also had to deal with the problem of reports that he had used marijuana as a college student, although President Bush on Friday dismissed the significance of his drug experimentation.

“I think the matter has been put in proper perspective, and I think he handled it very well, and, certainly, in this instance, in these circumstances, in no way is disqualifying,” Bush told reporters in Kennebunkport, Me.

The references to Farrakhan were contained in the prepared texts of two speeches written for Thomas when he was chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission during the Ronald Reagan Administration.

Farrakhan, who has espoused black separatism as leader of the Nation of Islam, has drawn fire from Jewish rights groups for characterizing their faith as “a dirty religion” in early 1984, several months after Thomas delivered his speeches.

According to the texts of the prepared speeches, which were released by EEOC officials, Thomas concluded his remarks about black self-empowerment with a reference to Farrakhan as “a man I have admired for more than a decade.”

Both speeches went on to quote Farrakhan: “And so, I say to you, whether America overcomes or not, we the poor, we the oppressed, we the blacks, we the Hispanics, we the disinherited, we the rejected and most despised, we will overcome and then together we will be able to say in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King: Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, we have united and made freedom a reality at last.”

The speeches were written by Thomas aide Armstrong Williams, who said they were intended to endorse only the self-help philosophy espoused by Farrakhan. In late 1983, he said, there was “no inkling” that Farrakhan later would become associated with anti-Semitism.

“Farrakhan was not controversial at that time,” Williams said. “If he had been the least bit controversial, I would not have included the quote in a speech, and Clarence would never have used it.”

In his statement, Thomas sought to distinguish between Farrakhan’s self-help philosophy and his other views. “I repudiate the anti-Semitism of Louis Farrakhan or anyone else,” he said. “While I support the concept of economic self-help, I have never supported or tolerated bigotry of any kind.”

Despite that assurance, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith said that Thomas “unfortunately did not go far enough” to distance himself from Farrakhan. “It is not possible to separate Farrakhan’s message from Farrakhan, the messenger,” said Abraham H. Foxman, the group’s national director.

However, spokesmen for the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles said they were satisfied with Thomas’ explanation. “That put the issue to rest,” said Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean of the center. “We are satisfied as far as the Farrakhan issue is concerned.”

Sen. John C. Danforth (R-Mo.), who is serving as Thomas’ sponsor during the confirmation process, said the nominee “was adamant” in his opposition to anti-Semitism. “As a victim of prejudice himself, he feels most strongly that it is morally wrong, and he has committed much of his professional life to combating it,” Danforth said in a statement.

One of the 1983 speeches, prepared for delivery to a group of black journalists in Washington, was not delivered as written, Williams said. Because he was speaking to an informal gathering of reporters, Thomas abandoned the prepared text and apparently did not mention Farrakhan in his off-the-cuff remarks, he said.

However, the second speech was a more formal presentation at a convention of the National Assn. of Black MBAs in Atlanta. In that case, Thomas stuck to the prepared text, including the reference to Farrakhan, Williams said.

Thomas received a standing ovation from the MBAs, something that happened only rarely in speeches to black groups, he said.

Williams, now a managing partner in a Washington public relations firm, said he included the Farrakhan quote in the Atlanta speech in an effort to link Thomas’ self-help philosophy with a similar opinion held by a figure familiar to inner-city blacks.

“We always discussed his speeches and interviews,” Williams said. After he drafted the speech and showed it to Thomas, Williams said, his boss told him: “This is one passage of Farrakhan’s I can relate to.”

Staff writer James Gerstenzang in Kennebunkport, Me., contributed to this story.

Palestine Action’s co-founder Huda Ammori has been granted permission to challenge the UK government’s decision to designate the group a terrorist organisation at the Supreme Court.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration’s activation of a long-dormant court to seek an Afghan woman’s deportation violates her constitutional rights, a defense lawyer argued Thursday at a hearing for the first case to be heard in the obscure court since its creation 30 years ago.

Attorney Matthew Farley urged the chief judge of the Alien Terrorist Removal Court to dismiss the case against Nazira Haji Zada and immediately release his client. Judge Joan Ericksen denied Farley’s requests but said Zada’s lawyers can renew them as the case proceeds in the nation’s capital.

“This entire scheme is in violation of due process and unconstitutional,” said Farley, an assistant federal public defender.

The court, established in 1996, had never received a petition until this month, when the Justice Department filed an application seeking Zada’s removal. The court has a specific authority to conduct deportation proceedings for individuals whom the Department of Justice classifies as “alien terrorists.”

FBI agents arrested her Tuesday at her Fort Worth home. She is not charged with any crimes.

An FBI memo dated July 15 said it “developed information” that she is an Islamic State supporter who had her children pledge their loyalty to the terrorist group. The memo says she “supported” a plot by relatives to carry out an ISIS-inspired attack in the United States.

Court filings identify her as the mother and mother-in-law of two Afghan men who were convicted in Oklahoma for their roles in the 2024 election day plot. Her son, Abdullah Haji Zada, was sentenced in November to 15 years in prison and court records show he previously agreed to be removed from the U.S. after his release.

Kunzelman and Tucker write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — President Trump and the Justice Department are asking the Supreme Court to toss an $83 million defamation verdict won by writer E. Jean Carroll after she accused him of sexual assault, saying he can’t be sued for comments he made while he was president.

It’s the second time Trump has asked the justices to nix damages awarded by a jury to Carroll, a longtime advice columnist and former TV talk show host. The Supreme Court refused in June to hear his appeal of another verdict, for $5 million, that found him liable for sexual abuse and defamation.

The latest case centers on comments Trump made during his first term as president. The Justice Department wants to invoke the Westfall Act, which shields government employees from being sued for doing their jobs.

“Absent this Court’s intervention, the sitting President is facing nearly a hundred million dollars of personal liability for conduct that was well within the scope of his federal office,” federal attorneys wrote. “That alone deserves this Court’s attention.”

The appeal was filed electronically and is expected to be formally docketed with the court Wednesday.

Trump’s lawyers, meanwhile, argued that an appeals court “engaged in procedural contortions” to avoid addressing Trump’s claims that presidential immunity protects him from the $83 million award because he made the statements in question in 2019 while he was president.

The lawyers argued that the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan ruled in a manner that “cries out for this Court’s review in this unprecedented case” and called the damages “grossly excessive.”

“This is the first case in our nation’s history in which a court has imposed damages liability on a president for his conduct in office,” the lawyers wrote.

Carroll’s lawyers have declined to comment on the latest Trump filing.

Trump has long argued he cannot be sued over comments he made about Carroll during his first term where he disavowed knowing her and attacked her motivations for going public with her story in a recent memoir. He’s also asking the Supreme Court justices to reconsider their rejection of his appeal in the $5 million verdict.

The appeal comes about two years after the Supreme Court granted Trump broad immunity from criminal prosecution as a former president.

Carroll testified twice before New York juries that Trump sexually assaulted her in spring 1996 in a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman, a luxury retailer across the street from Trump Tower. She first went public with the claims in a 2019 memoir.

She sued Trump for defamation after he accused her of making up the allegation to help book sales, adding that he’d never met her and “she’s not my type.” He has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.

A Manhattan jury awarded her $83 million in damages in January 2024. Lower courts have so far rejected Trump’s appeals to overturn the verdict, though the New York-based appeals court split over the decision and agreed to delay that payout until the Supreme Court weighs in.

In 2023, another jury said Carroll was entitled to $5 million after concluding that Trump had subjected her to sexual abuse in the department store encounter and for defamation for remarks he had made after his first term ended. That judgment has been paid.

The Associated Press does not identify people who say they have been sexually assaulted unless they come forward publicly, as Carroll has done.

Whitehurst and Neumeister write for the Associated Press. Neumeister reported from New York.

July 28 (UPI) — Chad has announced it is withdrawing from the International Criminal Court, days after a U.S. official urged the central African nation to consider doing so and amid a concerted U.S. campaign seeking to dismantle the court.

In an official communique made public Monday, Chad’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said it notified United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres of its decision to withdraw from the Rome Statute, the treaty establishing the court, following what it described as an “in-depth examination” of its operations.

The ministry said the court’s effectiveness “has remained limited and uneven in light of the expectations that led to its creation,” alleging an anti-African bias and noting that its first nine investigations concerned situations in Africa. The ICC currently lists 17 situations under investigation.

Chad also highlighted that six of the seven people in the court’s custody are being prosecuted in connection with situations in Africa.

“Taken together, these objective factors explain the perception, widely shared among numerous states and their populations, that the court’s judicial activity has remained durably concentrated on the Global South in general and on the African continent in particular, which have consistently been victims of a form of political instrumentalization of the ICC,” the ministry said.

It called on the African Union and member stats to reconsider the future of what it called an “apparently biased system” and to strengthen the African judicial mechanisms instead.

The decision, which is to take effect in one year, comes amid an intensified U.S. campaign against the ICC following the court’s issuance of arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.

Earlier this month, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced a campaign seeking to “dismantle the threat posed by the International Criminal Court to U.S. sovereignty.”

The United States is not a member of the ICC, and although the Trump administration has taken a more aggressive stance toward the court, the United States has long rejected the cour’s assertion of jurisdiction of U.S. nationals without Washington’s consent.

Four days before Chad announced its decision to withdraw from the ICC, Foreign Minister Abdoulaye Sabre Fadoul spoke with U.S. Under Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Frank Garcia Jr..

A statement from Chad said the call was made at the request of the United States. During the call, Garcia expressed the United States’ concerns about the ICC’s operation and requested that Chad review its membership, which Fadoul said Chad would.

“The United States welcomes Chad’s decision to withdraw from the ICC and join the growing number of nations reclaiming their sovereignty from this flawed institution,” the State Department’s Bureau of African Affairs said in a statement.

“The United States will never surrender its sovereignty to an unaccountable global tribunal, and we are launching a comprehensive, whole-of-government campaign to end the ICC’s illegitimate overreach. We call on all other ICC members to withdraw from the Rome Statute.”

The announcement comes days after Venezuela announced it was withdrawing from the ICC.

Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger all announced their withdrawals from the court in June 2026.

July 27 (Asia Today) — A South Korean court sentenced former President Yoon Suk Yeol on Monday to 18 months in prison, suspended for three years, after finding him guilty of making false statements during his successful 2022 presidential campaign.

The Seoul Central District Court said Yoon’s statements concerned his relationship with Jeon Seong-bae, a shaman also known as Geonjin, and his alleged introduction of a lawyer to former tax official Yoon Woo-jin.

“The impact of a candidate publicly making false statements during a debate or other campaign event on an election is extremely significant,” the court said. It added that the seriousness of Yoon’s conduct should not be regarded as minor.

Yoon’s attorneys said the court misunderstood the facts and relevant law and accepted only the special counsel’s arguments. They said they would appeal.

If the ruling is upheld by the Supreme Court, the main opposition People Power Party could be required to return about 39.7 billion won, or $27.1 million, in campaign expenses reimbursed by the government following Yoon’s election.

It would be the largest repayment of election expenses by a political party in South Korean history.

Yoon was charged over comments he made while running for president.

During an interview at the launch of a Buddhist leaders’ forum on Jan. 17, 2022, Yoon said a party official had introduced him to Jeon and that he and his wife, former first lady Kim Keon Hee, had never met Jeon together.

Prosecutors argued that Yoon had repeatedly received advice from Jeon and falsely portrayed their relationship as a chance introduction during the campaign.

Yoon was also charged over remarks at a Kwanhun Club debate on Dec. 14, 2021. He denied introducing a former senior prosecution official as an attorney for Yoon Woo-jin, a former district tax office chief who had faced a bribery investigation.

The court said Yoon’s statement contradicted the nature of his relationship with the former tax official.

Under South Korean election law, candidates who receive at least 15% of the vote can receive full government reimbursement of eligible campaign expenses. Candidates who receive between 10% and 15% can recover half of their expenses.

A political party must return reimbursed campaign expenses and the candidate’s deposit if its presidential nominee receives a final conviction carrying a fine of at least 1 million won, or about $680, for an election-law offense. The repayment must generally be made within 30 days.

The ruling adds to Yoon’s mounting legal problems following his removal from office over his brief declaration of martial law in December 2024.

The Supreme Court this month upheld a seven-year prison sentence against Yoon for offenses that included obstructing authorities attempting to detain him and violating legal procedures surrounding the martial law declaration.

Yoon was separately sentenced to life imprisonment in February after a lower court convicted him of leading an insurrection through the martial law declaration. His appeal is pending before the Seoul High Court.

In June, a lower court sentenced him to 30 years in prison for ordering military drone flights into North Korea in an alleged attempt to escalate tensions and create a justification for martial law. Yoon has appealed that ruling.

— 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=20260727010009828

A lower court blocked the mail-in ballot restrictions, ruling Trump lacked authority to change state election rules.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has asked the Supreme Court to allow it to move ahead with sweeping restrictions on mail-in voting ahead of November’s midterm elections, as it continues its push to reshape how federal elections are run.

In an emergency filing on Monday, the Justice Department asked the country’s highest court to pause a lower court ruling that blocked parts of Trump’s March executive order in 23 Democratic-led states and Washington, DC. The pause would remain in effect as the legal challenges play out, per the request.

The executive order directed federal agencies to help create state lists of eligible voters and required the US Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to people on those lists. It also instructed the Justice Department to prioritise investigations into election officials accused of issuing ballots to ineligible voters.

US District Judge Indira Talwani blocked the order in June, ruling that Trump lacked the authority to unilaterally change how states administer federal elections. She noted that under the Constitution, states oversee voter-eligibility requirements.

Over the weekend, the First US Circuit Court of Appeals declined to pause that ruling, prompting the administration to take the issue to the Supreme Court.

In its request to the top court, the administration argued that the order amounted to “general policy guidance” rather than a directive dictating how states should administer elections.

Solicitor General John Sauer wrote: “The injunction is especially indefensible because the agencies are still deliberating over how (if at all) to implement the Order, yet the district court preemptively decided that whatever the agencies may choose to do will necessarily be unlawful.”

He urged the Supreme Court to act quickly as the new policy would have to be in place by August to be effective by the midterm election in November.

Trump has long claimed, without evidence, that widespread voter fraud undermined the 2020 presidential election and has repeatedly questioned the security of mail-in voting, despite studies showing that such fraud is rare.

He has promised to end the widespread use of mail ballots before the midterms, which will determine which party takes control of the US House of Representatives and Senate.

Voting rights advocates say restricting mail-in voting could disproportionately affect Democratic voters, who have historically been more likely than Republicans to cast their ballots by mail.