court

New Delhi, India – In a crowded ward of New Delhi’s All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), India’s premier public hospital, a mother sits quietly beside her 29-year-old son, Piyush Singh*.

Diagnosed with stomach cancer a year ago, Singh has already undergone five rounds of chemotherapy. He now lies in the hospital’s palliative care unit, where the goal is no longer to cure the disease but to relieve pain and preserve his dignity.

“The world comes to AIIMS when they are not well. But where shall we go?” asks his mother. “My son has already received five doses of chemotherapy, but his condition has not improved. The doctors are not telling us anything. I don’t know what to do next.”

Piyush’s family is not asking for his life to end. They simply don’t know what comes when treatment fails.

A few floors away, Aryan* has come to AIIMS from Auraiya, a small town in Uttar Pradesh state, to accompany his 40-year-old brother Amit (name changed), who has been battling mouth cancer for four years. Two surgeries, radiation and two rounds of chemotherapy later, doctors say there is little hope of him surviving. The final checkup has been done. There is nothing more left to try.

“There is no duvidha [dilemma in Hindi],” says Aryan. “The doctors have said no. So it is clear now.”

He plans to take Amit to his rented flat in Gurgaon and give him whatever painkillers he has been prescribed. Beyond that, he has no plan, because no one has given him one.

“I don’t know about palliative care. I don’t know how to ease his pain. I have nothing apart from the medicines I got today,” he said.

Piyush and Amit are no exceptions. They represent a reality that many Indians are coming to terms with – with little institutional help.

India recorded an estimated 1.56 million new cancer cases in 2024, according to an Indian Council of Medical Research study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. But cancer patients are not alone. Families of patients with traumatic brain injuries and degenerative neurological conditions also hit the same wall.

According to a 2025 analysis by ecancermedicalscience, an open-access medical journal, an estimated seven to 10 million people require palliative care in India, but only about 4 percent receive it.

Such families find themselves with little or no awareness or preparedness for what comes next. Many have never heard of palliative care, or that the law gives them the right to document their treatment preferences before a crisis arrives.

The problem is also rooted in how many Indians confront death – a phenomenon that is one of the least-discussed subjects within families or societies. In many households, conversations about dying are considered inauspicious.

In such a worldview, to think of interventions in how or when someone dies carries a moral weight that goes beyond medicine or law. Families often avoid discussing medical wishes until a loved one is critically ill, leaving relatives to make deeply personal decisions during moments of grief and uncertainty.

From caregiving to court

The answers are increasingly being shaped not just by medicine, but also by the law.

In 2018, India’s Supreme Court recognised that the “right to die with dignity” was part of the fundamental right to life, enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The court also allowed such patients to record their wishes about life-sustaining treatment if they lose the capacity to decide in an advanced stage of their ailment.

The top court’s ruling was in response to a petition filed by Common Cause, an NGO, which called for legal procedures allowing terminally ill individuals to execute Advance Medical Directives, commonly known as “living wills”, to refuse life-prolonging medical treatment.

A living will is a legal document that highlights an individual’s preferences for medical treatment when they cannot voice their choices. The provision allows them to nominate a loved one to decide for them.

“It [judgement] broadens the scope of Article 21. It now affirms, kind of completely, that the right to life includes the right to die with dignity. That is the bottom line for us,” Vipul Mudgal, director of Common Cause, the organisation behind the 2005 petition, told Al Jazeera.

Yet, for most Indians, that right largely existed on paper – until six years later.

In 2024, a family in Ghaziabad, an industrial district on the outskirts of New Delhi, filed a petition in the Delhi High Court and later in the Supreme Court, asking for a decision on the fate of a 32-year-old patient who was in a vegetative state for nearly 13 years.

Harish Rana’s case was a first in India where passive euthanasia, or withdrawal of life support, was permitted by the top court. On March 11, the Supreme Court directed the withdrawal of his life support at AIIMS, New Delhi. He passed away two weeks later.

But the journey from caregiving to courtroom was not easy.

Rana’s family managed his feeding tube, tracheostomy and urine bag every day for 13 years, and it had drained them.

“A family reaches such a decision when it sees no scope for improvement. Harish Rana could not speak, we were his voice,” Rana’s father Ashok told Al Jazeera. “He was not in that state for 13 days or 13 months, but for 13 years.”

All those years, said Ashok, he watched his son breathe but not recover, with only one question on his mind: “I am around 63 years old, and my wife is 58 years old. If something happens to either of us, who would take care of him?”

That is when they decided to approach the court.

While the Rana case is a landmark, experts say it is unlikely to set an immediate precedent in a country where death is an uncomfortable topic. That is why, despite being legalised in 2018, living wills remain uncommon and largely unheard of.

As a result, terminally ill patients do not discuss their wishes while they still can, and families end up making decisions for them without preparation or guidance.

A 2019 survey across seven cities, including New Delhi, Mumbai and Kolkata, by Healthcare at Home (HCAH), a health advocacy group, found that 73 percent of urban Indians were unaware of their right to a living will. Even among people aware of their right, only 6 percent had actually drafted such a will.

“The Harish Rana case was made more complex because there was no living will,” said Manish Jain, the lawyer who represented the family in court. “Living will clinics are absent across India.”

There are only two such clinics in India. The first opened in Mumbai last year, followed by one in New Delhi – both operated by private hospitals, which are beyond the reach of most Indians.

Fears of misuse of living wills

Concerned over a likely misuse of living wills, the Supreme Court made its guidelines complex. However, in the process, the court ended up making it difficult to navigate for most people.

To make a living will legally valid, an individual would sign it before two witnesses and get it countersigned by a magistrate. If the patient later became terminally ill, the treating doctor would be required to form a board of specialists with at least 20 years of experience each, whose findings then had to go to a district magistrate, who would form a second medical board. Only after both boards agreed could the process move forward, and any disagreement meant the matter went to the regional High Court.

In 2019, the Indian Society for Critical Care Medicine, a nonprofit group of physicians, approached the Supreme Court, arguing its guidelines were unworkable. In 2023, a five-judge top court bench simplified the process, removing the requirement of a magistrate’s countersignature, reducing the minimum medical experience requirement for review boards from 20 years to five, and allowing multiple nominees instead of one.

“Decisions are being made every day, sometimes by the family members, sometimes by the doctors, sometimes because of paucity of money,” said Mudgal.

He said if the families, doctors and courts can make end-of-life decisions for an individual, why cannot the individuals make those decisions for themselves? This recognition, while respecting individual autonomy, also relieves family members from the guilt of deciding for their loved one, he added.

“If there is no meaning left in life, somebody is kept alive artificially, just beating the heart with some mechanical device, that life has no meaning,” he said.

Yet, such questions remain unanswered by law. Living wills and the right to die exist entirely through judicial interpretation. There is no parliamentary law governing the same.

“There is no framework [of parliamentary law] passed by the parliament,” Jain said. “The Supreme Court of India itself requested the government to pass legislation regarding this issue,” he added, first in 2018 and again in 2023.

But lack of a law is only one part of the challenge.

For families, the absence of palliative care means little or no guidance on what comes after treatment options run out. Even families like Piyush’s, who have access to palliative care, don’t know what comes next.

“There are many patients like this who don’t have legal awareness of passive euthanasia. Not only patients, but their doctors also do not have full awareness about palliative care,” Dr Saipriya Tewari, principal consultant and unit head of pain management and palliative care at Max Super Speciality Hospital in New Delhi, told Al Jazeera.

She said families often look confused when told there is no treatment left, and that they should take the patient home.

“What will they do after taking the patient home? Nobody tells them. It is only discussed if the palliative care doctor is involved in the treatment,” Tewari said. “And even if the end is coming, then how do we maintain dignity in time? That is the question.”

Piyush’s mother has a different question.

“If he is sick, then we have to get treatment. We have to do something to keep him alive. What should we do? We are not able to think of a way out of this. Nobody is giving us any suggestions about where to go.”

*Names changed to protect the identity of the patients and their families.

She added Dott allegedly touched her over her clothes and lasted “maybe a couple of minutes”.

Prosecutor Lindsey Dalziel then asked if she remembered Dott saying anything.

The witness said she remembered that “it was odd to me”.

“I think he said ‘does that feel nice’ or something. I cannot recall,” she added.

She went on to speak of another alleged incident after Dott was said to have asked if she wanted to play a “guessing game” at the house.

The witness claimed Dott, who lives in the Dennistoun area of Glasgow, went on to suggest that she take her trousers down. He also lifted her top and started kissing her “belly”.

She also accused him of inappropriately touching her.

The witness claimed the abuse had happened several times.

Asked if she ever told anyone at that time about what was happening, she stated: “No. Graeme told me not to.”

The woman told the court it was few years later that she first confided in a friend, but did not go into any details with her.

She said she also spoke to a teacher before meeting with police in January 2001.

Officers then came to her door in 2024, the court heard.

Dalziel asked: “Had you done anything to instigate the police coming?”

The witness said: “No, I was in complete shock.”

The trial, before Judge Lord Harrower, continues.

Supreme Court grants jailed ex-PM Imran Khan transfer to hospital for nearly a month after concerns were raised over his blood pressure.

Islamabad, Pakistan — Pakistan’s Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered the transfer of Imran Khan, former prime minister and founder of the opposition Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party, from Rawalpindi’s Adiala prison to Islamabad’s Shifa International Hospital within two days, accepting a demand his party had been making for months.

Uzair Bhandari, one of Khan’s lawyers, told Al Jazeera the three-member bench also ordered a medical board be formed to oversee Khan’s treatment, including the ex-prime minister’s sister, Dr Uzma Khan, and his personal physician, Dr Faisal Sultan.

“The court also directed that Khan’s family be allowed to meet him at the hospital and that he be permitted to speak with his sons, who live abroad,” Bhandari said.

The next hearing has been fixed for September 16, and Khan should remain hospitalised until at least then as per the order, according to the lawyer. This will be the longest period that Khan will be physically outside jail premises since he was imprisoned in August 2023, convicted in several corruption-related cases that he and his party insist are politically motivated.

The order followed a report Adiala jail’s superintendent submitted to the court on Monday, detailing a cardiac board’s August 10 review of Khan, 73, which recorded fluctuating blood pressure and anxiety linked to restricted contact with his family.

During Tuesday’s hearing, the court pressed Pakistan’s advocate general over gaps in the report, saying Khan’s “pulse and heart condition were not normal” and that his vital organs “had started being affected”.

Courts had twice declined similar transfer requests since February, including an Islamabad High Court ruling that ordered a medical board’s assessment instead.

Zulfi Bukhari, a senior PTI leader, told Al Jazeera the ruling reinforced the party’s longstanding position that Khan needed independent, specialised treatment outside Adiala jail.

“Medical care provided within the prison system is no substitute for a thorough evaluation by independent specialists of his choosing,” he said, adding that PTI had consistently called for Khan’s transfer to Shifa International and access to his own doctors.

Government officials have insisted any transfer required judicial authorisation rather than executive discretion.

Rana Sanaullah, adviser to the prime minister, told the Senate on Monday that Khan was receiving “the best available medical treatment” and that his condition did not support PTI’s concerns.

The order lands amid a wider standoff over access to Khan, which PTI has increasingly framed as the precondition for reviving talks with the government. The government, for its part, has renewed efforts to engage in dialogue but to no avail as yet, while PTI leadership has announced a countrywide protest on September 27.

Brace yourselves, BookTok: Bestselling romantasy author Sarah J. Maas just dropped the titles and covers for the sixth and seventh “A Court of Thorns and Roses” books.

Maas scrubbed her Instagram of all previous posts for the big reveal, and digital billboards in Los Angeles, Denver and New York City also broadcast the book news. In March, Maas announced on Alex Cooper’s “Call Her Daddy” podcast that the two new books were on their way, ending a five-year drought since the fifth installment, “A Court of Silver Flames.”

The sixth book, “A Court of Splintered Harmony,” will hit bookshop shelves Oct. 27. According to news media materials, in the sixth installment of the romantasy phenomenon, “what was broken will be remade.” As Koschei the Deathless stirs from millennia-long captivity, powerful allies close in to reclaim the human lands. To counter the growing threat across Fae territories, Prythian’s fractured Night Court must overcome internal rifts and recent betrayals to restore former alliances.

And in the seventh book, “A Court of Forgotten Melody,” which is slated for publication Jan. 12, diplomacy is failing and traditional alliances are falling apart as the threat of Koschei the Deathless reaches a critical point. Desperate for any advantage, the Night Court’s Inner Circle must scatter far and wide to face emerging past enemies and salvage Prythian’s fragile peace.

The first installment of the “A Court of Thorns and Roses” series was released in 2015, but the series garnered widespread popularity on BookTok during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns. The books follow Feyre Archeron in the faerie lands of Prythian and her steamy love story with the High Lord of the Night Court, Rhysand.

Maas is one of the pioneers of the modern romantasy boom and widely credited with taking “fairy porn” or “faerie smut” into the mainstream. But Maas told Cooper in May that although she loves writing hot sex scenes, she has a bone to pick with people dismissing her work as “smut.”

“I find that there is a tendency for people to roll their eyes at things that bring women joy,” she told Cooper. “Anytime a woman writes something and there’s even a little hint of sex that’s not fade to black or very artistically mentioned, it’s like suddenly it devalues the work, and it doesn’t matter what else is in that book. … I don’t understand because you’re writing a thing that is so accurate to life, and sex is a part of life.”

Times staff writer Katie Simons contributed to this report.

Aug. 17 (UPI) — A group of Texas families are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a challenge to a state law that requires public schools to post a version of the Ten Commandments in a visible spot in every classroom.

The more-than-two-dozen families of various religious faiths and none are appealing a lower court’s decision in April to uphold Senate Bill 10. The families are from 22 school districts throughout the state and are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Texas, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Freedom from Religion Foundation.

“Texas politicians shouldn’t have a seat at the table in deciding how our children receive their religious education,” said plaintiffs Rebekah and Ted Lowe of Austin, who are raising their children in Christian and Jewish religious traditions. “This law puts one version of religious beliefs above all other in our public schools and sends a message to our children that what we teach them about religion at home is somehow wrong.”

“I’m not only worried about my own kids, but I’m deeply concerned about all the children in my congregation,” said plaintiff Rabbi Joshua Fixler of Houston. “These displays put children in the position of having to defend themselves and their families’ religious beliefs against a government mandate that makes them feel different and separate from their classmates.”

In April, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law does not violate the First Amendment’s establishment clause — which prevents the government from establishing a religion — or free exercise clause — which forbids government from prohibiting “free exercise” of religion.

“This is a major victory for Texas and our moral values,” said Ken Paxton, Texas’s Republican attorney general, after the ruling. “The Ten Commandments have had a profound impact on our nation, and it’s important that students learn from them every single day.”

However, in its release on the request Monday, the ACLU noted that a Supreme Court case in 1980 — Stone vs. Graham — already dealt with the matter of the Ten Commandments in public schools. In that case, the high court found that a Kentucky law requiring the Ten Commandments to be posted in every public-school classroom was unconstitutional and violated the establishment clause.

In the filing Monday, the lawyers for the families involved said the court should again reject the idea of government-imposed religion.

“If the permanent, unavoidable imposition of biblical scripture in public-school classrooms does not interfere with, or threaten to undermine, parents’ ability to direct their children’s religious education and ot instill particular religious beliefs and practices, it is difficult to imagine what would,” the filing said.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday again rebuffed President Trump’s push to throw out a jury’s $5 million finding that he sexually abused the writer E. Jean Carroll at a New York City department store in the mid-1990s and later defamed her.

The Republican president’s lawyers had asked the justices to reconsider their refusal to hear his appeal. The court denied Trump’s petition along with several others.

It’s unusual — although not unheard of — for the court to grant such requests. Trump paid the judgment shortly after the court declined to take up his appeal in June.

Trump and the Justice Department are also asking the high court to toss out a second Carroll verdict totaling $83 million. They argue he’s immune from being sued over comments he made about her in 2019, when he was president. The court has not yet acted on that appeal.

Carroll is a longtime advice columnist and former TV talk show host. She testified at a 2023 trial that Trump turned a friendly 1990s encounter into a violent attack in the dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman, a luxury retailer across the street from Trump Tower in Manhattan. The jury found Trump liable for defaming Carroll when he denied her allegation in 2022.

Trump has denied any wrongdoing.

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

Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press.

President Trump’s goal of ending gender-affirming care is not improper and cannot be the basis for quashing a subpoena issued by the Justice Department against a provider of medical treatment for transgender youth, a divided federal appeals court ruled Friday.

The Justice Department announced last year that it had issued more than 20 subpoenas to doctors and clinics that provide gender-affirming care as part of an effort to investigate healthcare fraud. Federal judges have quashed many of the subpoenas as illegitimate efforts to intimidate providers into ending care.

In a 2-1 decision, a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the efficacy and long-term risks of the treatments are “uncertain,” and the president has the power to align the Justice Department’s enforcement priorities with his broader policy goals.

“Every President has law enforcement priorities, just as every President has signature policies (often, the former are components of the latter),” wrote Judge Carlos Bea.

Bea, a nominee of Republican President George W. Bush, was joined in the opinion by Daniel Bress, a Trump nominee. They reversed a ruling that quashed the subpoena against telemedicine provider QueerDoc, sending the case back to the district court to consider other arguments.

The subpoena seeks QueerDoc’s personnel files, billing documents, communications with drug manufacturers and records of patients who were prescribed puberty blockers or hormone therapy, among other information, according to the 9th Circuit decision.

American Civil Liberties Union attorney Adrien Leavitt, who represented Washington state-based QueerDoc, said the ACLU would continue fighting the subpoena in district court. QueerDoc has also argued the subpoena is overbroad and burdensome. The Justice Department has said it has reason to believe the company may be misleading people about puberty blockers and hormones.

“We’re ready to continue defending one of the most fundamental principles of healthcare: every patient’s right to confidential medical care,” Leavitt said in a statement.

He said the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit was the first appeals court to weigh in on the subpoenas.

Trump has signed one executive order defining sex as only male or female — and as unchangeable — and another that seeks to end federal funding of the care for patients under 19. The latter order also directs the Justice Department to “prioritize investigations” into violations of a drug safety law by “any entity that may be misleading the public about long-term side effects of chemical and surgical mutilation.”

Gender-affirming care includes a range of medical and mental health services to support a person’s gender identity, including when it’s different from the sex they were assigned at birth. It encompasses counseling, medications that block puberty and hormone therapy to produce physical changes as well as surgeries to transform chests and genitals, though those are rare for minors.

Most major medical groups say access to the treatment is important for those with gender dysphoria and see gender as existing along a spectrum.

The 9th Circuit majority called discussion around gender-affirming care “an unsettled scientific debate” and said the Trump administration could also justify its opposition to the treatment on ethical or philosophical grounds.

Thanawala writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has largely ended a pathway to citizenship for DACA recipients who marry U.S. citizens.

President Trump tried, unsuccessfully, to end DACA during his first term. This week’s action reflects his administration’s ongoing focus on the Obama-era program that shields from deportation hundreds of thousands of immigrants, often referred to as Dreamers, who were brought to the U.S. as children.

“It was inevitable that what Trump was going to do in office this time was to embark on a massive delegalization mission,” said Karen Tumlin, director of the Justice Action Center in Los Angeles. “That’s what this is.”

Tumlin was referring to a ruling by an administrative immigration court that was published Thursday.

The ruling concerns a travel provision afforded to recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, the program created in 2012. The provision allowed DACA recipients to travel in ways other people without legal status cannot.

DACA isn’t technically a form of legal status, though its recipients are granted work permits.

For immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally, leaving the country or being deported triggers a penalty — many are banned from coming back into the U.S. for a decade.

Most people who qualify for legal residency, or a green card, have to serve that 10-year ban before they can apply for a green card, which can lead to citizenship.

But DACA recipients, under the travel provision called advance parole, could leave the U.S. for school, work or humanitarian reasons. When they returned through an airport or border, the stain of their original unlawful entry was erased.

With the penalty wiped away, a DACA recipient married to a U.S. citizen or who had another way to obtain legal residency could start that process for a green card without delay.

Thursday’s ruling by the Board of Immigration Appeals does away with that benefit.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services spokesman Zach Kahler said the decision confirms a “straightforward principle” that departing the U.S. has meaning.

“The immigration laws enacted by Congress impose consequences when someone who has accrued unlawful presence, leaves the country and later seeks admission, including when that departure occurs under advance parole,” he said. “U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will ensure that immigration filings are decided based on the laws, regulations, and binding legal precedent that govern each case.”

Immigration attorneys and other advocates quickly convened Thursday to determine how the ruling will affect immigrants.

Tumlin said some DACA recipients can still safely travel with advance parole, while for others — particularly those with deportation orders — it would be too risky to leave. She said DACA recipients should consult with an immigration attorney before traveling.

“For over a decade, I could reassure my clients that traveling on Advance Parole was a safe option,” Shilpa Malik, an immigration lawyer in Florida wrote Thursday on X. “What was once a vital protection is now gone.”

Under the ruling, having the travel document may no longer protect certain DACA recipients when they return from their trips abroad, because leaving could expose them to the years-long ban.

The decision also makes obtaining green cards more difficult. Tumlin said some DACA recipients could qualify for waivers that allow them to avoid the years-long reentry ban, but the waivers are granted under limited circumstances.

The latest federal data show there are 455,000 DACA recipients in the U.S. as of March, with about 126,000 in California.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, 45,447 DACA recipients were approved for advance parole as of Aug. 21, 2017.

About 76,000 DACA recipients had become legal residents as of July 31, 2019, most after marrying a U.S. citizen, according to the research service. It’s unclear how many DACA recipients have obtained advance parole or green cards since then.

Path2Papers, a project at Cornell Law School, analyzed 1,600 consults and estimated that around 60% of DACA recipients would be subject to the 10-year ban.

Republicans have viewed advance parole as an abuse of the immigration system.

The office of Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) blasted the provision, saying in 2017 that “the Obama administration allowed thousands of DACA recipients to exploit an immigration law loophole to obtain green cards.”

Last year, Grassley introduced a bill to guarantee that it would no longer be used by immigrants seeking to adjust their legal status. This week’s ruling essentially accomplishes that goal.

The immigration appeals board’s decision applies to future travel. People who previously traveled and returned to the U.S. won’t be affected and could still adjust their immigration status.

Tumlin said Thursday’s decision is yet another effort to change the goalposts for DACA recipients by an administration that has resorted to ending the program “through death by a thousand cuts.”

The Department of Homeland Security has arrested hundreds of immigrants with DACA, and in a February letter to U.S. senators, then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said the agency had deported 86 DACA recipients between Jan. 1 and Nov. 19, 2025.

One of those was Maria de Jesus Estrada Juarez, a Sacramento mother who was deported a day after her green card interview. A federal judge later ordered the agency to bring her back to the U.S.

The decisions mark both a victory and a setback for President Emmanuel Macron, who had championed both policies.

France’s Constitutional Council has upheld a law passed by parliament to legalise assisted dying in specific circumstances, while striking down a separate bill that sought to ban under-15s from using social media.

The council, France’s highest constitutional authority, issued its rulings on Friday. The decisions mark both a victory and a setback for President Emmanuel Macron, who had championed both policies.

France is set to join several European countries that have already legalised assisted dying, including Belgium, Germany and Luxembourg, among others.

“This decision marks the culmination of a long democratic and parliamentary effort, conducted with listening, respect, and rigour,” Elisabeth Borne, MP and former French prime minister, said in a post on X about the assisted-dying decision.

“I welcome this definitive validation of a text that guarantees everyone the freedom to choose, within a strict and protective framework.”

The council upheld the law in its entirety while clarifying three provisions, including the so-called conscience clause, under which pharmacists may refuse to assist a patient in ending their life.

Private treatment centres can also refuse to participate in the procedure if it goes against their mission, and other centres can serve local needs. Lastly, in the case of protected patients, the opinion of the person responsible for their welfare must be taken into account.

French citizens and legal residents can request medical support in ending their lives under strict conditions. The legislation stipulates that the patient must be “suffering from an incurable, life-threatening illness in an advanced or terminal phase”, and that the illness must cause “constant physical or psychological suffering that is untreatable or unbearable”. Lastly, the patient must exercise free and informed consent.

The French National Assembly passed the bill last month by a majority of 50, with 291 voting in favour and 241 against.

Meanwhile, the Constitutional Court struck down legislation banning under-15s from social media, citing freedom of expression.

“By prohibiting minors under the age of fifteen from accessing certain online services, the law inherently requires every person, even an adult, to prove their age before accessing them,” the court said in its decision.

“However, by failing to specify the conditions and limits under which such proof must be provided, the legislature has not established the legal safeguards necessary to ensure compliance with these requirements,” it added. The court also said that the law fails to safeguard people’s privacy.

The bill was one of Macron’s flagship policies and was passed by parliament last month.

It stipulated that everyone in France would have to verify their age to access social media sites, and it was supposed to come into effect in January 2027. Macron was eager for the bill to be passed before the presidential election next year.

After Friday’s ruling, Macron asked Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu to work on a new “legally robust draft” of the legislation.

Last month, Amnesty International responded to the French parliament’s decision to impose the social media ban on teens, urging lawmakers to focus their efforts on forcing companies to redesign their apps, including what it described as “addictive features”.

“There is no doubt that regulating platforms to protect children is an imperative of our time. We commend states for taking social media harms seriously but rather than pursuing blanket bans, efforts should be on forcing platforms to abandon their reckless pursuit of profit to the detriment of human rights,” Secretary General Agnes Callamard said.

“Building safe platforms requires a robust response. To ensure platforms are spaces where children can access community, connection and knowledge in a healthy and safe way, governments should first focus on banning the features that drive harm, including engagement-based algorithms that Amnesty International’s research has shown can draw children into rabbit holes of depressive and suicidal content.”

Caracas, August 13, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan government and representatives of the defunct 2015 National Assembly announced a series of agreements after concluding a first round of talks on Wednesday. 

The two parties will conduct a process aimed at transforming the judicial system as well as promoting the recovery of Venezuela’s gold reserves frozen at the Bank of England to support the country’s reconstruction following the June 24 earthquakes.

The agreement on the judicial overhaul, presented in a joint press conference at the 5-star Melá Hotel in Caracas, effectively replaces the process the Venezuelan National Assembly had launched in May following a reform that increased the Supreme Court of Justice (TSJ) from 20 to 32 members and a preliminary evaluation of magistrate candidates. 

Instead, the delegations agreed to “renew and expand the judicial nominations committee,” launch a “new nomination process” for the appointment of all Supreme Court justices, and establish a council to review the credentials and requirements of nominees to ensure compliance with the Constitution.

The joint document signed by National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez, on behalf of the acting Delcy Rodríguez administration, and Dinorah Figuera, representing the opposition faction, makes no reference to the National Electoral Council (CNE), an issue considered key by anti-government forces. 

Figuera had previously vowed that the dialogue process would produce a new CNE by the end of 2026. Lawmaker Tomás Guanipa said that the opposition considers it “very important” for the issue to be addressed as soon as possible in order to “radically” change the electoral authority.

The negotiators instead prioritized “the recovery of the country’s international reserve assets” held at the Bank of England, while “establishing mechanisms for transparency, traceability, and auditing in their efficient use, to guarantee the well-being of all those affected” by the June 24 double earthquake.

Since 2019, the Bank of England has refused to release 31 tons of gold reserves belonging to Venezuela, which were deposited in 2008. Successive UK governments aligned with Washington in refusing to recognize the Nicolás Maduro government as legitimate. At current gold prices, the reserves are worth approximately US $4 billion.

Wednesday’s agreement likewise included a pledge to “work on strengthening programs for housing, electricity, healthcare, and debris removal.”

Acting President Rodríguez welcomed the “first step” in the dialogue process and urged all political forces to join the talks, “putting the well-being, peace, stability, and development of the country first.”

“I trust that this process will help build a path toward better democratic coexistence among the country’s different political sectors and that it will translate into concrete benefits for Venezuelans,” Rodríguez wrote on Telegram.

Following an initial session on August 6, the delegations held daily meetings split between plenary sessions and working sessions focused on the post-earthquake emergency and judicial and electoral reforms.

Jorge Rodríguez and Figuera pledged that the talks would yield “concrete actions” with “strict compliance with commitments.” The parties are scheduled to meet again in mid-September through both in-person and virtual sessions.

Before Wednesday’s joint press conference, Figuera held separate meetings with opposition groups and NGOs. Anti-government figures demanded that the release of “political prisoners” be a priority in the dialogue framework. Far-right factions have complained that María Corina Machado was not included in the negotiations, though the Unitary Democratic Platform backing her also met with Figuera last Friday.

The latest government-opposition negotiation initiative follows previous iterations, including in the Dominican Republic (2017-18) and Barbados (2023). 

Venezuelan authorities, including Jorge Rodríguez, had fiercely condemned the defunct 2015 opposition-majority legislature for usurping functions and plundering Venezuelan assets abroad. Rodríguez went as far as proposing that Figuera and associates be stripped of their Venezuelan nationality. Despite its mandate expiring in January 2021, a group of opposition lawmakers unilaterally decided to extend the term as the body retained recognition from Washington as Venezuela’s “legitimate government.”

The Trump administration has endorsed the latest dialogue process, with the State Department calling it a “unique opportunity” for a “political transition” in Venezuela.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow the White House to resume construction on its $400 million ballroom project while it appeals a lower court’s order to halt the work.

Trump’s solicitor general on Friday petitioned the high court to suspend last week’s decision by a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The divided panel ruled last week Trump must stop the White House ballroom’s construction because Congress has not approved the project. The panel’s majority said Trump doesn’t have the unilateral authority to build a 90,000-square-foot ballroom where the White House’s East Wing stood before he ordered its demolition last fall.

The lower court suspended its own ruling for two weeks to give Trump’s Republican administration time to appeal to the Supreme Court. The solicitor general asked the Supreme Court to rule on its stay petition before the appeals court panel’s decision takes effect on Aug. 21.

“This case involves an extraordinary and unlawful injunction that will halt the ongoing construction of the integrated military complex, including a totally secure ballroom space, at the East Wing of the White House, which is vitally required by national security,” the solicitor general wrote.

The lower court’s 2-1 decision sided with historic preservationists who sued to stop construction of the ballroom.

The administration argues that the president, not Congress or the courts, has unimpeded authority to renovate the White House. The current state of the project, essentially an open construction site, makes it harder to protect the White House, the Justice Department contends.

The administration also says the National Trust for Historic Preservation does not have the legal right, or standing, to sue over the ballroom.

During an appeals court hearing in early June, an administration lawyer defended a broad view of presidential control over iconic public facilities.

The government could bulldoze the Statue of Liberty and the White House, Justice Department lawyer Yaakov Roth said in response to a hypothetical question, and the descendants of immigrants who came through Ellis Island and the enslaved people who built the White House would not have standing to sue.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

Aug. 14 (UPI) — A federal trade court threw out a legal challenge to President Trump’s executive order scrapping the so-called “de minimis” exemption loophole under which goods worth less than $800 could enter the United States duty free.

Three judges sitting in the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled Thursday that Trump had the legal authority to invoke the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to eliminate de minimis, in contrast to his April 2025 “liberation day” global tariffs which it ruled were unlawful, a decision the Supreme Court subsequently upheld.

“In reaching this conclusion, we find that the President’s power to ‘nullify [or] void . . . exercising any . . . privilege’ does not run afoul of separation of powers principles,” they wrote in their judgment.

The judges found the removal of the exemption did not constitute “an exercise of the power of the purse” and “is not an exercise of the power to legislate.”

In the global tariffs case, the Supreme Court came to the opposite conclusion, ruling that Trump could not act without approval from Congress.

Trump hailed Thursday’s ruling as a “big win” for his resolve to get rid of what he said was a “ridiculous giveaway… one of the most DESPICABLE loopholes in American Trade Policy” that he said was costing the U.S. Treasury more than $10 billion in revenue from tariffs that it would otherwise receive.

“For years, Foreign Shippers could send packages worth up to $800 into our Country, DUTY FREE, NO TARIFF, far less scrutiny. It became a giant loophole for TARIFF Cheats — and a Pipeline exploited by Fentanyl Traffickers, Counterfeiters, and other Criminals shipping dangerous and illegal products into America. The numbers were staggering. In 2024 alone, de minimis cost America an estimated 10.8 BILLION DOLLARS in foregone TARIFF Revenue, and an astonishing share of narcotics and counterfeit seizures came through the de minimis channel,” said Trump.

Detroit Axle, a Michigan-based auto-parts distributor, brought the de minimis case last year on grounds Trump had overstepped his authority under IEEPA. The firm’s legal counsel did not immediately comment on the ruling.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection netted more than a billion dollars in 2025 from the ending of de minimis and the court ruling clears the way for it to continue until it is permanently eliminated when Trump’s One Big Beautiful tax cut and spending bill kicks in next July.

The Trump administration again on Wednesday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene — and fast — to save President Trump’s plan for the U.S. Postal Service to place new nationwide limits on mail voting ahead of the November midterms.

It did so after a lower court judge blocked the Postal Service plan from moving forward for a second time on Tuesday.

Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote to the high court that if it does not act quickly to lift both of the lower court’s “erroneous” rulings blocking the plan, those orders “will effectively run out the clock on the government’s ability to implement” the changes in time for the November election, “thereby causing irreparable harm to the federal government, the public, and election integrity.”

Sauer’s latest argument was filed in an emergency case already before the Supreme Court, in which the Trump administration is challenging a June decision blocking the Postal Service’s rule changes by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani.

Talwani, an appointee of President Obama, ruled in favor of California and 22 other states that had challenged the new rules as coming far too late in the election year to be implemented without causing significant disruptions and harming voters. That decision, which was upheld by an appellate court in July, had barred the new measures from being implemented in the states that sued, but not elsewhere.

However, Sauer filed his latest argument in response to a second ruling by Talwani in a separate case Tuesday, in which she sided with the League of Women Voters and other voting rights groups to block the Postal Service plans from moving forward nationwide.

“That it is now less than 90 days before the November 3, 2026 midterm elections underscores the critical need for an injunction to prevent Defendants from changing election rules on the eve of the election,” Talwani wrote.

The court battle follows an executive order Trump issued in March, in which he called on the Postal Service and the Department of Homeland Security to ensure “citizenship verification and integrity in federal elections” by compiling their own state-by-state lists of citizens who are eligible to vote and then using those lists to restrict who may vote by mail in each state.

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

The order was immediately slammed by Democratic attorneys general and independent voting rights groups as a ploy by the Trump administration to get its hands on state voter rolls, which it has failed to secure in separate legal challenges, and severely limit mail voting, which Trump has without evidence alleged is a major source of voter fraud.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta helped lead the states’ lawsuit challenging Trump’s order, and has praised Talwani’s orders blocking it from taking effect. Bonta has said the law is clear that states control elections, not the federal government, and that Trump’s order is an illegal and dangerous power grab ahead of a pivotal election in which the president’s party is poised to lose power.

A spokesperson for Bonta’s office said it was aware of Sauer’s filing and considering “next steps” Wednesday.

The Trump administration’s appeal to the Supreme Court is limited in scope, in that it hinges on a technical argument that the challenges to the new rules are premature — and that the Postal Service should be allowed to continue preparing for the new rules to be implemented while the legal battle over their legality continues.

Sauer reiterated that argument in his filing Wednesday, asking the high court to not only issue its order soon, but to make clear in it that not one but both of Talwani’s orders are premature.

He wrote that courts cannot block the implementation of an executive order “that merely instructs agencies to pursue a proposed policy in a manner that is consistent with law,” particularly before those agencies “actually take concrete actions that injure” the groups suing to block the order.

Therefore, Sauer wrote, it would be “prudent” for the high court to make clear that it was halting Talwani’s first order “based on the uncertainty concerning the government’s future actions, not anything specific to the individual plaintiffs” — or, in other words, on grounds that would apply to her second order, too.

He wrote that it was “critical” that the court “act promptly.”

The states have asked the high court to block Trump’s order, which they said would deny mail ballots to “many of the millions of voters who rely on mail voting — especially voters with disabilities and those in rural areas.”

The League of Women Voters hailed Talwani’s order Tuesday as a win for voters and for the U.S. Constitution, which it said makes clear the president does not have the authority to rewrite election rules.

“Millions of Americans, including seniors, military voters, voters with disabilities, rural voters, and citizens living overseas, rely on voting by mail to participate in our democracy,” said Marcia Johnson, the group’s chief of activation and justice. “Today’s decision reaffirms that the rules governing our democracy must be set by the Constitution and the law, not by executive overreach.”

When the high court will rule is unclear, though the emergency nature of the appeal calls for a prompt response.

RIVERSIDE, Calif. — A former Southern Poverty Law Center official has been charged in the Department of Justice’s broader criminal case against the Alabama-based civil rights group, a frequent target of conservative critics who claim the nonprofit is politically biased.

Heidi Beirich, a political extremism expert who left the law center about six years ago, was named in an indictment unsealed Wednesday.

Beirich, 59, of Palm Springs, is charged with wire fraud conspiracy, conspiracy to submit false statements to a federally insured bank and conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering. She was charged in the government’s existing case against the SPLC in Montgomery, Ala.

In ankle cuffs and wearing a red T-shirt, Beirich made her initial court appearance for a bond hearing in Riverside, Calif., on Wednesday afternoon. She did not enter a plea and U.S. Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow ordered her to surrender her passport and appear in court in Alabama within two weeks.

The judge released Beirich on her own recognizance after prosecutors declined to file a request for detention. Her lawyer, Michael Proctor, said in court that Beirich is a “highly, highly responsible, pro-social and trustworthy” member of society with no criminal history.

Earlier in the day, Proctor said his client is innocent of the charges and described the case as politically motivated. He accused prosecutors of trying to punish his client for her “decadeslong record of success dismantling hate groups.”

“A free and fair society does not use the justice system to silence its political opponents,” Proctor said in a statement.

Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche announced the new charges at a news briefing in Washington, but did not name Beirich. CNN was first to report on the charges against Beirich.

“This is exactly what we said would happen in a case like this,” Blanche said. “Our investigators and the U.S. Attorneys and the agents working the case will keep on working it even after the initial indictment.”

An SPLC spokesperson said the case against it and Beirich “will not shake our resolve.”

“Taking on violent hate and extremist groups is among the most dangerous work there is, and we believe it is also among the most important work we do,” the spokesperson said in a statement. “We are confident in our position and look forward to presenting the evidence and making our case in court.”

Beirich led the SPLC’s Intelligence Project, which incurred the anger of conservatives with its annual report on organizations that it classified as hate groups. Critics accused the law center of unfairly tarnishing right-wing groups with the same label that it applied to white supremacists.

Beirich co-founded the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism in 2020 after leaving the SPLC. She has testified before Congress about far-right extremism and is frequently interviewed about the subject by news outlets. Her current organization did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment Wednesday.

A superseding indictment filed in June appears to refer to Beirich as “Employee-2” and by her former title as director of the SPLC’s Intelligence Project.

The indictment alleges that between 2007 and 2023, more than $4 million in donated funds were secretly funneled to people who infiltrated or were associated with violent extremist groups. Prosecutors said some of the money was used for recruiting new members and purchasing Ku Klux Klan robes and materials for cross-burning ceremonies.

The indictment says “Employee-2” oversaw the payment of donor money to SPLC informants or “field sources,” including KKK members and white nationalists who initially approached the SPLC for help leaving the extremist organizations. The SPLC employee was in a romantic relationship with a source who infiltrated a neo-Nazi group at the direction of the law center, the indictment alleges

Proctor said Beirich “won’t be silenced or intimidated by the government’s false and politicized allegations.”

Kunzelman, Chandler and Ding write for the Associated Press. Kunzelman reported from Washington and Chandler from Montgomery, Ala. AP writers Eric Tucker, Alanna Durkin Richer and Collin Binkley in Washington and Christopher Weber in Los Angeles contributed to this report.

A judge in a Northern California county that has become a poster child for election skepticism has halted a voter-approved measure that would dramatically reshape elections there, including by eliminating most voting by mail and requiring ballots to be hand-counted.

Shasta County Superior Court Judge Benjamin L. Hanna on Friday issued a preliminary injunction that temporarily blocks Measure B, a citizens’ initiative approved by 56% of voters in the June primary.

None of the measure’s sweeping changes will be implemented for the November general election, and all active registered voters in Shasta County will receive ballots by mail, as mandated by state law, the county said in a statement.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber, the state’s top elections official, sued Shasta County in mid-June, days after the primary, arguing that Measure B violates multiple state election laws and must be struck down before the November election.

The case initially was filed in California’s 3rd District Court of Appeal, but judges there declined to review it, saying the case first should proceed through the trial court.

In his ruling last week, Hanna wrote that he was halting implementation of Measure B while the case proceeds because allowing it to go into effect now “would likely result in the disenfranchisement of many Shasta County voters who would be clearly eligible to vote under state law, but would not meet the improperly narrow criteria to vote under Measure B.”

The measure, Hanna wrote, “seeks to create a whole new electoral system that would require creation of new voter rolls and re-registration of existing voters.” Doing so “would be “difficult under normal time frames, let alone three months before the November general election.”

Hanna cited the state’s “high likelihood” of success in the lawsuit.

Weber said in a statement that the judge’s decision “made clear what we already know — creating unnecessary barriers does not strengthen our democracy, it weakens it.”

The new public observation room at the Shasta County elections office.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

The Shasta Election Task Force, the citizens’ group that wrote the initiative and collected thousands of signatures to get it on the ballot, said in a statement that Measure B “was enacted by the voters” and that they do not believe the state has established a lawful basis for blocking it “merely because Sacramento objects to the election reforms they adopted.”

The fight over election integrity in mostly-rural, deeply conservative Shasta County comes as President Trump — who remains fixated on his 2020 election loss — is calling for the federal government to “nationalize” state-run elections and fighting to restrict voting by mail.

Measure B gained popularity amid Trump’s baseless claims of cheating. California’s anticipated but painfully slow vote count after the June primary — largely the result of the labor-intensive process for tallying millions of mailed ballots — only fueled such claims. But it also prompted Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic state lawmakers this summer to allocate $40 million to help counties speed up the process.

The citizens’ initiative approved in Shasta County would limit voting by mail, the method used by an overwhelming majority of Californians, to only “the infirm, military, and U.S. citizens living overseas.”

Measure B would require elections to be held in person on a single day and create a separate county voter registration system disconnected from the state’s uniform system. It also would require residents to present government-issued photo identification to cast a ballot (as would a statewide ballot measure that voters will decide upon in November).

The measure drew steep opposition from numerous civil and voting rights organizations — including the ACLU, the League of Women Voters, Disability Rights California, the Asian Law Caucus, and Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California — who said it would disenfranchise voters.

One prominent supporter of Measure B told The Times in May that he expected the county to be sued if voters approved it.

“We don’t like the state laws,” said Richard Gallardo, a leader of Save Shasta Elections. “We want to enact our own local election reform. … There’s a lot in there, so, yes, we do expect the state to sue us.”

Gallardo, an election integrity activist who once tried, unsuccessfully, to place all of the county supervisors under citizen’s arrest during the COVID-19 pandemic, is among the “real parties in interest” named in the state’s lawsuit. He said he believed the onus was on the county to “fully and fervently” defend Measure B in court because it’s “the will of the voters.”

Richard Gallardo, a leader of the citizens’ group that wrote Shasta County’s Measure B, is blocked by a guard in November 2022 after attempting to go into a restricted area to observe ballots at the elections office in Redding. At right is then-assistant county registrar Joanna Francescut.

(Mel Melcon / Los Angeles Times)

In recent years, the election skepticism movement bolstered by Trump has found a strong foothold in Shasta County.

In 2023, the Shasta County Board of Supervisors, swept up in unfounded election fraud allegations promoted by the president, ditched Dominion voting machines and opted to hand-count ballots for the county’s more than 110,000 registered voters — quickly prompting a new state law that banned them from doing so.

Last year, the supervisors appointed Clint Curtis — a Florida-based attorney whose claims about rigged voting machines stretch back to the early 2000s — to be the Shasta County registrar of voters, a position vacated by two previous registrars who resigned for health reasons, saying they were exacerbated by the stress of the job.

Curtis promptly eliminated nine of the vast county’s 13 ballot drop boxes. He accused his predecessors in the registrar’s office, without evidence, of stuffing ballots to sabotage conservative Republicans. And he called for federal authorities to raid his office and seize ballots.

Curtis — a vocal proponent of hand-counting ballots who has worked with MyPillow Chief Executive and pro-Trump conspiracy theorist Mike Lindell — advocated for Measure B and is named as a defendant in the state’s lawsuit.

He was voted out of office in June and will be replaced in January by Joanna Francescut, the former longtime assistant registrar, whom he fired.

Brazil’s Supreme Court is set to hear several cases that could reshape protections for the Amazon rainforest, after a mostly conservative Congress overrode several of leftist Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva’s environmental vetoes.

The court will take up the cases on Wednesday, as lawmakers and environmental groups remain divided over how Brazil should balance economic development with environmental protections.

Deforestation in the Amazon has fallen to its lowest level in a decade during the first half of 2026. The cases put some of Brazil’s most consequential environmental fights before the country’s top court.

Indigenous land rights

On Friday, Brazil’s Supreme Court began reviewing final motions seeking clarification of a 2025 ruling that rejected the “time limit” thesis. The legal theory, backed by Brazil’s agribusiness lobby, restricts Indigenous land claims to territories occupied or under legal dispute when Brazil’s 1988 Constitution took effect.

The agribusiness caucus argues that a cutoff date would provide legal certainty for landowners. Indigenous groups say it ignores decades of forced displacement and violence that pushed communities from their ancestral lands. Indigenous communities across the Amazon, including the isolated and uncontacted Kawahiva people, could be affected by the ruling.

The justices are considering motions that seek clarification of the court’s ruling, addressing questions about compensation and possible deadlines for completing Indigenous land demarcations.

The soya farming moratorium

On Wednesday, the court will consider a legal fight over the future of Brazil’s soya moratorium, an agreement that barred major traders from buying soya grown on land deforested in the Amazon after 2008.

The agreement has been credited with helping curb deforestation, even as Brazil became an agricultural powerhouse. But states that are major soya producers passed laws in January revoking tax incentives for participating companies, prompting the Brazilian Association of Vegetable Oil Industries (ABIOVE) to withdraw from the moratorium.

Brazil is the world’s largest producer and leading exporter of soya beans. The Ministry of Environment and Climate Change has defended the soya moratorium, saying it helped reduce Amazon deforestation even as Brazil expanded production.

Environmental licensing

The court will also consider on Wednesday a challenge to a new environmental licensing law that took effect in February.

The law fast-tracks approval for projects including mines, highways and industrial plants, prompting environmental groups to warn that it could weaken safeguards in one of the world’s most important ecosystems.

Suely Araujo of the Climate Observatory said the law is already having tangible consequences in the Amazon, citing the paving of a controversial highway and plans to dredge the Tapajos River without adequate prior environmental review.

Baka’s confirmation is the latest repudiation of Viktor Orban’s legacy by Hungary’s new leaders

Hungary’s parliament has confirmed Andras Baka, a former Supreme Court chief and critic of former Prime Minister Viktor Orban, as the country’s next president.

The National Assembly voted in a secret ballot on Tuesday to confirm him as president with 140 votes in favour, six opposing and no abstentions.

He had been nominated on Saturday by the Tisza party, which holds a constitutional majority of more than two-thirds of parliament. During the nomination, Tisza lawmakers said Baka’s experience would represent “a significant asset” as the party lays “the foundations for Hungary’s new constitutional order”.

Opposition party Fidesz – which dominated Hungary’s politics until a landslide electoral defeat in April – boycotted the vote. They accuse Tisza of using authoritarian tactics to reshape the country’s political system, a charge the party denies.

Baka, 73, served two terms as a judge on the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg before being elected head of Hungary’s Supreme Court in 2009. He was removed two years later after publicly criticising Orban’s government reforms, which he said threatened judicial independence. He will assume office on August 19.

Baka replaces ex-President Tamas Sulyok, an Orban appointee who weeks ago was ousted from the role by constitutional amendment, part of Tisza’s wide-reaching campaign to dismantle the political power structures built by Orban during his 16 years in power.

Tisza has also used its majority to reform the media, establish an anticorruption task force and impose an eight-year term limit on prime ministership, effectively barring Orban’s return to the office.

While Hungary’s presidency carries mostly ceremonial powers, with limited authority to veto or refer legislation, Baka’s is appointment is seen by many as the latest repudiation of Orban’s legacy.

SACRAMENTO — Lawyer Kamalpreet Chohan ran her finger down a list of 57 names of people scheduled to appear during a morning of hearings at the immigration court in Sacramento and pointed out one glaring commonality.

“None of these folks are represented,” she said.

Chohan is the coordinator of a program that sends volunteer lawyers to immigration courts to assist people without representation and help them navigate the complicated legal system, where the stakes are a future in the U.S. or deportation.

Appearing without a lawyer opens up even greater risk under the second Trump administration, with the courts playing a key role in its mass deportation agenda. Courts are increasingly denying asylum, deportation officers have arrested immigrants in court hallways and the administration has packed courtrooms to cut backlogs and reduced lead time on hearings, causing people to miss them.

Data show that legal representation can be crucial to winning in court, but many immigrants, unable to pay for a private lawyer or find a pro bono one, navigate the system without an attorney at their side.

“Folks go into immigration court not knowing what’s happening. They come out not knowing what’s happening. And when there’s an attorney present,” Chohan said, “it’s just so helpful.”

No guaranteed legal representation

Unlike criminal court, there is no guaranteed lawyer in immigration courts.

Immigrants have to hire one at a cost of thousands of dollars or hope to get represented by one of the nonprofit organizations assisting low-income immigrants. But waitlists with those organizations are long, and many parts of the country just do not have that many immigration attorneys.

Of the roughly 3.2 million pending deportation cases currently in U.S. immigration courts, people in 52% of those cases do not have a lawyer, according to an analysis of immigration court data by the Vera Institute of Justice, a think tank.

A Congressional Research Service study from 2024 found that only 19% of people who did not have a lawyer won asylum or another avenue to stay in the United States. Among those who did have a lawyer, 47% were successful.

“Having an attorney is just super critical to be able to navigate the system successfully,” said Adriel Orozco of the advocacy group American Immigration Council.

Chohan said she frequently runs into people who have been scammed by lawyers or people posing as lawyers who take their money but do nothing for their case.

“I will give him a list of attorneys who are free and we have vetted,” she said, referring to one man who said he had been scammed. “They have long waitlists, but he should still ask.”

Speaking later to the Associated Press, the man described how he left Guatemala after being threatened by gangs and came to the U.S. in 2024 seeking asylum. Ever since, he said, he has done everything that has been asked of him while he tries to make ends meet, occasionally painting houses. He spent $4,500 on a lawyer who in the end did nothing to help him, he said.

“He turned out to be a scammer,” said the man, who did not want to be identified for fear of endangering his case. He is worried about what comes next in court after being warned by the judge that he could be deported. “I don’t know what I’m going to do,” he said.

A busy day in court

Outside the Sacramento building where the court is housed is a long line of immigrants waiting for appointments with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which is in the same building. Volunteers with a local anti-ICE resistance group stand ready to help.

Upstairs, two immigration judges are on the bench. One hears the in-depth individual cases of immigrants who are pursuing their claim of asylum.

The other judge has the master calendar docket, where dozens of immigrants will appear in brief hearings geared at making sure their case is ready to go to the next step.

Signs taped to the wall remind people not to make audio or video recordings inside the court complex. A security guard makes sure no one loiters in the hallways. Most people clutch stacks of papers documenting their cases.

After immigrants file into the courtroom for their hearings, Judge Susan Phan introduces Chohan and describes the services her organization offers.

“You are not required to meet with her, but it is a rare opportunity that we have someone volunteering their time,” Phan said before launching into the day’s work.

Details matter

Chohan, who works with the California Immigration Project, starts each hearing in the courtroom. She has a clipboard to take notes, extra copies of forms and a crate of books for restless children attending court with their parents. She spends the bulk of her time in the waiting room, talking to clients after their hearings and scanning their documents to flesh out what else they need.

Speaking to one young man from Mexico, she asks to see his asylum application, noting that the judge had pointed out that it was lacking in detail.

“Sometimes judges can deny a claim if there isn’t enough detail,” she said through one of the organization’s volunteer interpreters.

The organization frequently holds clinics to help immigrants fill out their asylum application. Chohan said she will alert him to the next one.

Another woman holding a stack of documents is there with her son and wanted to make sure her children could come with her if she is deported. Chohan also briefed her on what to expect at her upcoming asylum hearing and said the organization would send her an asylum filing guide.

Chohan highlighted places on forms where people need to give answers or answer in more detail. It’s OK to write “none, ” but she advises them to not leave boxes blank.

Everything submitted in Spanish must be accompanied by a translation into English that must be done by a person, not an automatic online translator. Copies of every page of a passport must be submitted. Documents must be sent in two weeks before the applicant’s hearing so the judge can review them.

Over and over, Chohan reminds immigrants to download their receipt showing they paid the $102 asylum application fee so they can submit it to the court.

Chohan said a lot of these procedures and forms are discussed in court, but it is happening fast and immigrants are listening through an interpreter, so they don’t always understand.

“A lot of times when they go into court, they’re just happy that they’re out of court and they’re not being arrested,” she said.

A changing court system

Chohan has witnessed the upheaval in the immigration courts during President Trump’s second term.

She was in the court hallways last summer when ICE officers waited to arrest immigrants after their hearings. Earlier this summer she watched as the administration started holding “mega masters,” hearings with dozens of respondents at a time that are meant to clear a backlog but have created chaos.

Chohan said there are not enough pro bono lawyers in the Sacramento area to help everyone who needs one, so the “attorney of the day” program is often the next best thing. She believes everyone should have access to a lawyer.

Until that day, she said, the program “helps bridge that gap.”

Santana writes for the Associated Press.

Suspected Irish crime boss Daniel Kinahan has appeared before a Dublin court after being extradited from Dubai. The 49-year-old, who is one of the world’s most wanted men, was charged with directing a criminal organisation after being extradited from Dubai.

Andras Baka, a strong advocate for judicial independence, becomes Tisza’s pick for Hungary’s next president.

Hungary’s governing Tisza party has nominated Andras Baka, a former Supreme Court chief removed from his post by Viktor Orban’s government in 2012, as its candidate for the country’s presidency.

The nomination, announced Saturday by Prime Minister Peter Magyar, marks the latest step in Tisza’s effort to dismantle Orban’s influence over state institutions since the party’s landslide election victory in April ended his 16-year rule.

The decision to nominate Baka for the presidency comes weeks after Tisza used a constitutional amendment to remove Orban-era President Tamas Sulyok from office.

On Tuesday, Baka, 73, is expected to be elected by parliament, where Tisza holds a constitutional majority.

Magyar wrote on Facebook that the nomination, made by secret ballot within the party’s parliamentary group, was “one of its most important decisions so far”.

Tisza lawmakers said Baka had always “attached paramount importance to the principle of separation of powers, consistently standing up for the rule of law and judicial independence”, adding that his experience represented “a significant asset” as the party lays “the foundations for Hungary’s new constitutional order”.

Fidesz, the party now in opposition, said it would boycott the vote, accusing Tisza of authoritarian tactics – allegations it denies.

Baka served two terms as a judge on the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg before being elected head of Hungary’s Supreme Court in 2009.

He was removed two years later after publicly criticising Orban’s government reforms, which he said threatened judicial independence. The European court later ruled that his dismissal had violated his rights to a fair trial and freedom of expression, a judgement the Council of Europe said Hungary failed to fully implement.

Hungary’s presidency carries mostly ceremonial powers, with limited authority to veto or refer legislation, though the nomination is being treated as a heavily symbolic move.