Courts

Colombian fighters Alexander Ante, 48, and Jose Aron Medina Aranda, 37 were each sentenced to 13 years in prison for serving with Ukrainian forces.

A court run by Moscow-installed authorities in Ukraine’s occupied Donetsk region has sentenced two Colombian nationals to 13 years in prison each for fighting on behalf of Kyiv.

The ruling, announced on Thursday, is the latest in a series of lengthy sentences handed to foreign fighters accused by Moscow-backed prosecutors of being “mercenaries”.

“For participating in hostilities on the side of the Armed Forces of Ukraine” – Alexander Ante, 48, and Jose Aron Medina Aranda, 37 – “were each sentenced to 13 years in prison”, the prosecutor’s office said on the Telegram messaging app.

According to reports, the pair fought for Ukraine in 2023 and 2024 before disappearing in July while transiting through Venezuela, a close ally of Russia, on their way home to Colombia after serving in the war.

Colombian newspaper El Tiempo reported in July 2024 that the men were detained in the Venezuelan capital Caracas while still wearing Ukrainian military uniforms.

A month later, Russian authorities said they had taken custody of the two, who both hail from the western Colombian city of Popayan.

Footage released by Russia’s FSB security service showed the men handcuffed and dressed in prison uniforms as masked officers escorted them through a court building.

News of the pair’s sentencing on Thursday was widely covered in Colombian media.

“I don’t know if we will see them again one day. That’s the sad reality,” said Medina’s wife, Cielo Paz, in an interview with the AFP news agency, adding that she had not heard from her husband since his arrest.

#Colombia 🇨🇴🇷🇺 Alexander Ante y José Medina fueron condenados por participar como “mercenarios” en las hostilidades del lado de las Fuerzas Armadas de Ucrania.

👉Lee la nota completa en: https://t.co/UrlDjv6Tnp pic.twitter.com/1kiEl1rlU2

— RTVC Noticias (@RTVCnoticias) November 6, 2025

Translation: Alexander Ante and Jose Medina were convicted for participating as “mercenaries” in the hostilities on the side of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

In June, Russian state news agency TASS reported that Pablo Puentes Borges, another Colombian national, was handed a 28-year prison term by a Russian military court on charges of terrorism and mercenary activity for fighting alongside Ukrainian forces.

Earlier, in April, Miguel Angel Cardenas Montilla, also from Colombia, received a nine-year sentence for fighting with Ukrainian forces.

While Russian investigators have labelled foreigners who fight alongside Ukrainian forces as “mercenaries”, the Kyiv Post notes that most foreign fighters serving in Ukraine’s armed forces are formally enlisted and receive the same pay and status as Ukrainian soldiers.

That formalisation of their status in the Ukrainian army means they do not meet the legal definition of a mercenary under international law, the media outlet reported.

But Moscow continues to prosecute captured foreign fighters as “mercenaries” – a charge that carries up to 15 years in prison – rather than recognising them as prisoners of war who are protected under the Geneva Conventions.

Colombia’s government says dozens of its citizens have been killed fighting in Ukraine since the war began in February 2022.

Abby Zwerner, 28, was shot in 2023 as she sat in a first-grade classroom and sustained life-threatening injuries.

A jury in the state of Virginia in the United States has awarded $10m to a former teacher who was shot by a six-year-old student.

The jury on Thursday sided with former teacher Abby Zwerner’s claim, made in a civil lawsuit, that an ex-administrator at the school had ignored repeated warnings that the six-year-old child had a gun in class.

Zwerner, 28, was shot in January 2023 as she sat at a reading table in her first-grade classroom and spent nearly two weeks in the hospital, required six surgeries and still does not have the full use of her left hand.

The bullet fired by the six-year-old narrowly missed her heart and remains in her chest.

Zwerner, who did not address reporters outside the court after the decision was announced, had sought $40m in damages against Ebony Parker, a former assistant principal at Richneck Elementary School in the city of Newport News, Virginia.

One of her lawyers, Diane Toscano, said the verdict sent a message that what happened at the school “was wrong and is not going to be tolerated, that safety has to be the first concern at school”.

Zwerner’s lawyers had claimed that Parker, the assistant principal at the time, had failed to act in the hours before the shooting after several school staff members told her that the student had a gun in his backpack.

“Who would think a six-year-old would bring a gun to school and shoot their teacher?” Toscano had asked the jury earlier.

“It’s Dr Parker’s job to believe that is possible. It’s her job to investigate it and get to the very bottom of it.”

Parker did not testify in the lawsuit.

The mother of the student who shot Zwerner was sentenced to four years in prison after being convicted of child neglect and firearms charges.

No charges were brought against the child, who told authorities he got his mother’s handgun by climbing onto a drawer to reach the top of a dresser, where the firearm was in his mother’s purse.

Newtown Action Alliance, an advocacy organisation that supports reforms aimed at addressing gun violence, said that the case points to the need for greater regulations over the storage of firearms in homes with children.

“Abby Zwerner was shot by her 6-year-old student using a gun from home,” the group said in a social media post, adding that “76 percent of school shooters get their guns from their homes or relatives”.

Abby Zwerner was shot by her 6-year-old student using a gun from home.

76% of school shooters get their guns from their homes or relatives.

Urge your Members of Congress to cosponsor Ethan’s Law.

Congressional Switchboard: (202) 224-3121#SafeStorageSavesLives #EndGunViolence pic.twitter.com/YZyuo0KxXj

— Newtown Action Alliance (@NewtownAction) November 6, 2025

Zwerner no longer works for the school district and has said she has no plans to teach again. She has since become a licensed cosmetologist.

While accidents involving young children accessing unsecured firearms in their homes are common in the US, school shootings perpetrated by those under 10 years old are rare.

A database compiled by US researcher David Riedman has registered about 15 such incidents since the 1970s.

The DOJ argued that the federal judge did not have the authority to make the decision.

A United States judge in Texas has approved the Department of Justice’s request to dismiss a criminal case against Boeing despite his objections to the decision.

On Thursday, Judge Reed O’Connor of the US District Court in Fort Worth dismissed the case, which will allow the plane maker to avoid prosecution over charges related to two deadly 737 MAX crashes: the 2018 Lion Air crash in Indonesia and the 2019 Ethiopian Airlines crash.

O’Connor said he disagreed with the Justice Department’s argument that ending the case served the public interest, noting that he lacked the authority to overrule it.

The government argued Boeing has improved, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is providing enhanced oversight. Boeing and the government argued O’Connor had no choice but to dismiss the case.

He said the deal with the aerospace giant “fails to secure the necessary accountability to ensure the safety of the flying public”.

In September, O’Connor held a three-hour hearing to consider objections to the deal, questioning the government’s decision to drop a requirement that Boeing face oversight from an independent monitor for three years and instead hire a compliance consultant.

O’Connor said the government’s position is “Boeing committed crimes sufficient to justify prosecution, failed to remedy its fraudulent behaviour on its own during the [deferred prosecution agreement], which justified a guilty plea and the imposition of an independent monitor, but now Boeing will remedy that dangerous culture by retaining a consultant of its own choosing”.

The DOJ first criminally charged Boeing for the crashes in January 2021, but also agreed to deferred prosecution in the case.

The plane maker was charged with one count of conspiracy to defraud the US. Courts found that Boeing deceived the FAA about what is called the manoeuvring characteristics augmentation system, which affects flight control systems on the aircraft.

“Boeing’s employees chose the path of profit over candor by concealing material information from the FAA concerning the operation of its 737 Max airplane and engaging in an effort to cover up their deception,” acting Assistant Attorney General David P Burns of the DOJ’s criminal division said in a statement at the time.

O’Connor said in 2023 that “Boeing’s crime may properly be considered the deadliest corporate crime in US history”.

Under the non-prosecution deal, Boeing agreed to pay an additional $444.5m into a crash victims’ fund to be divided evenly per victim of the two fatal 737 MAX crashes, on top of a new $243.6m fine and more than $455m to strengthen the company’s compliance, safety, and quality programmes.

On Wall Street, Boeing’s stock was up by 0.2 percent as of 11am in New York (16:00 GMT).

The US Supreme Court has questioned US President Donald Trump’s authority to use emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs on trading partners around the world.

In a closely watched hearing on Wednesday in Washington, DC, conservative and liberal Supreme Court judges appeared sceptical about Trump’s tariff policy, which has already had ramifications for US carmakers, airlines and consumer goods importers.

The US president had earlier claimed that his trade tariffs – which have been central to his foreign policy since he returned to power earlier this year – will not affect US businesses, workers and consumers.

But a legal challenge by a number of small American businesses, including toy firms and wine importers, filed earlier this year, has led to lower courts in the country ruling that Trump’s tariffs are illegal.

In May, the Court of International Trade, based in New York, said Trump did not have the authority to impose tariffs and “the US Constitution grants Congress exclusive authority to regulate commerce”. That decision was upheld by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC, in August.

Now, the Supreme Court, the country’s top court, is hearing the issue. Last week, the small business leaders, who are being represented by Indian-American lawyer Neal Katyal, told the Court that Trump’s import levies were severely harming their businesses and that many have been forced to lay off workers and cut prices as a result.

In a post on his Truth Social Platform on Sunday, Trump described the Supreme Court case as “one of the most important in the History of the Country”.

“If a President is not allowed to use Tariffs, we will be at a major disadvantage against all other Countries throughout the World,” he added.

What happened in Wednesday’s Supreme Court hearing, and what could happen if the court rules against Trump’s tariffs?

Here’s what we know:

What was discussed at the Supreme Court on Wednesday?

During a hearing which lasted for nearly three hours, the Trump administration’s lawyer, Solicitor General D John Sauer, argued that the president’s tariff policy is legal under a 1977 national law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

According to US government documents, IEEPA gives a US president an array of economic powers, including to regulate trade, in order “to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat”.

Trump invoked IEEPA in February to levy a new 25 percent tax on imports from Canada and Mexico, as well as a 10 percent levy on Chinese goods, on the basis that these countries were facilitating the flow of illegal drugs such as fentanyl into the US, and that this constituted a national emergency. He later paused the tariffs on Canada and Mexico, but increased China’s to 20 percent. This was restored to 10 percent after Trump met Chinese President Xi Jinping last month.

In April, when he imposed reciprocal tariffs on imports from a wide array of countries around the world, he said those levies were also in line with IEEPA since the US was running a trade deficit that posed an “extraordinary and unusual threat” to the nation.

Sauer argued that Trump had imposed the tariffs using IEEPA since “our exploding trade deficits have brought us to the brink of an economic and national security catastrophe”.

He also told the court that the levies are “regulatory tariffs. They are not revenue-raising tariffs”.

But Neal Katyal, the lawyer for the small businesses that have brought the case, countered this. “Tariffs are taxes,” Katyal said. “They take dollars from Americans’ pockets and deposit them in the US Treasury. Our founders gave that taxing power to Congress alone.”

What did the judges say about tariffs?

The judges raised another sticking point: Also, under the US Constitution, only Congress has the power to regulate tariffs. Justice John Roberts noted that “the [IEEPA] statute doesn’t use the word tariff.”

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan also told Sauer, “It has a lot of actions that can be taken under this statute. It just doesn’t have the one you want.”

Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was appointed by Trump during his first term as president, asked Sauer, “Is it your contention that every country needed to be tariffed because of threats to the defence and industrial base?

“I mean, Spain, France? I could see it with some countries, but explain to me why as many countries needed to be subject to the reciprocal tariff policy,” Coney Barrett said.

Sauer replied that “there’s this sort of lack of reciprocity, this asymmetric treatment of our trade, with respect to foreign countries that does run across the board,” and reiterated the Trump administration’s power to use IEEPA.

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor took issue with the notion that the tariffs are not taxes, as asserted by Trump’s team. She said, “You want to say that tariffs are not taxes, but that’s exactly what they are.”

According to recent data released by the US Customs and Border Protection agency, as of the end of August, IEEPA tariffs had generated $89bn in revenues to the US Treasury.

During the court’s arguments on Wednesday, Justice Roberts also suggested that the court may have to invoke the “major questions” doctrine in this case after telling Sauer that the president’s tariffs are “the imposition of taxes on Americans, and that has always been the core power of Congress”.

The “major questions” doctrine checks a US executive agency’s power to impose a policy without Congress’s clear directive. The Supreme Court previously used this to block former President Joe Biden’s policies, including his student loan forgiveness plan.

Sauer argued that the “major questions” doctrine should not apply in this context since it would also affect the president’s power in foreign affairs.

Why is this case the ultimate test of Trump’s tariff policy?

The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority and generally takes several months to make a decision. While it remains unclear when the court will make a decision on this case, according to analysts, the fact that this case was launched against Trump at all is significant.

In a recent report published by Max Yoeli, senior research fellow on the US and Americas Programme at UK-based think tank Chatham House, said, “The Supreme Court’s outcome will shape Trump’s presidency – and those that follow – across executive authority, global trade, and domestic fiscal and economic concerns.”

“It is likewise a salient moment for the Supreme Court, which has empowered Trump and showed little appetite to constrain him,” he added.

Penny Nass, acting senior vice president at the German Marshall Fund’s Washington DC office, told Al Jazeera that the verdict will be viewed by many as a test of Trump’s powers.

“A first impact will be the most direct judicial restraint at the highest level on Presidential power. After a year testing the limits of his power, President Trump will start to see some of constraints on his power,” she said.

According to international trade lawyer Shantanu Singh, who is based in India, the global implications of this case could also be huge.

“One objective of these tariffs was to use them as leverage to get trade partners to do deals with the US. Some countries have concluded trade deals, including to address the IEEPA tariffs,” he told Al Jazeera.

After the imposition of US reciprocal tariffs in April and again in August, several countries and economic blocs, including the EU, UK, Japan, Cambodia and Indonesia, have struck trade deals with the US to reduce tariffs.

But those countries were forced to make concessions to get those deals done. EU countries, for example, had to agree to buy $750bn of US energy and reduce steel tariffs through quotas.

Singh pointed out that an “adverse Supreme Court ruling could bring into doubt the perceived benefit for concluding deals with the US”.

“Further, trade partners who are currently negotiating with the US will have to also adjust their negotiating objectives in light of the ruling and how the administration reacts to it,” he added.

Other countries including India and China are currently actively engaged in trade talks with the US. Trade talks with Canada were terminated by Trump in late October over what Trump described as a “fraudulent” advertisement featuring former President Ronald Reagan speaking negatively about trade tariffs, which was being aired in Canada.

What happens if the judges rule against Trump?

Following Wednesday’s Supreme Court Hearing, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who was at the court with Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, told Fox News that he was “very optimistic” that the outcome of the case would be in the government’s favour.

“The solicitor general made a very powerful case for the need for the president to have the power,” he said and refused to discuss the Trump administration’s plan if the court ruled against the tariff policy.

However, Singh said if the Supreme Court does find these tariffs illegal, one immediate concern will be how tariffs collected so far will be refunded to businesses, if at all.

“Given the importance that the current US administration places on tariffs as a policy tool, we can expect that it would quickly identify other legal authorities and work to reinstate the tariffs,” he said.

Nass added: “The President has many other tariff powers, and will likely quickly recalibrate to maintain his deal-making efforts with partners,” she said, adding that there would still be very complicated work for importers on what to do with the tariffs already collected in 2025 under IEEPA.

During Wednesday’s hearing, Justice Coney Barrett asked Katyal, the lawyer for the small businesses contesting Trump’s tariffs, whether this process of paying money back would be “a complete mess”.

Katyal said the businesses he’s representing should be given a refund, but added that it is “very complicated”.

“So, a mess,” Coney Barrett stated.

“It’s difficult, absolutely, we don’t deny that,” Katyal said in response.

In an interview with US broadcaster CNN in September, trade lawyers said the court could decide who gets the refunds. Ted Murphy, an international trade lawyer at Sidley Austin, told CNN that the US government “could also try to get the court to approve an administrative refund process, where importers have to affirmatively request a refund”.

What tariffs has Trump imposed so far, and what has their effect been?

Trump has imposed tariffs of varying rates on imports from almost every country in the world, arguing that these levies will enrich the US and protect the domestic US market. The tariff rates range from as high as 50 percent on India and Syria to as low as 10 percent on the UK.

The US president has also imposed a 50 percent tariff on all copper imports, 50 percent on steel and aluminium imports from every country except the UK, 100 percent on patented drugs, 25 percent levies on cars and car parts manufactured abroad, and 25 percent on heavy-duty trucks.

According to the University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model, which analyses the US Treasury’s data, tariffs have brought in $223.9bn as of October 31. This is $142.2bn more than the same time last year.

In early July, Treasury Secretary Bessent said revenues from these tariffs could grow to $300bn by the end of 2025.

But in an August 7 report, the Budget Lab at Yale University estimated that “all 2025 US tariffs plus foreign retaliation lower real US Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth by -0.5pp [percentage points] each over calendar years 2025 and 2026”.

Meanwhile, according to a Reuters news agency tracker, which follows how US companies are responding to Trump’s tariff threats, the first-quarter earnings season saw carmakers, airlines and consumer goods importers take the worst hit from tariff threats. Levies on aluminium and electronics, such as semiconductors, also led to increased costs.

Reuters reported that as tariffs hit factory orders, big manufacturing companies around the world are also struggling.

In its latest World Economic Outlook report released last month, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) said the effect of Trump’s tariffs on the global economy had been less extreme.

“To date, more protectionist trade measures have had a limited impact on economic activity and prices,” it said.

However, the IMF warned that the current resilience of the global economy may not last.

“Looking past apparent resilience resulting from trade-related distortions in some of the incoming data and whipsawing growth forecasts from wild swings in trade policies, the outlook for the global economy continues to point to dim prospects, both in the short and the long term,” it said.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court’s conservatives face a test of their own making this week as they decide whether President Trump had the legal authority to impose tariffs on imports from nations across the globe.

At issue are import taxes that are paid by American businesses and consumers.

Small-business owners had sued, including a maker of “learning toys” in Illinois and a New York importer of wines and spirits. They said Trump’s ever-changing tariffs had severely disrupted their businesses, and they won rulings declaring the president had exceeded his authority.

On Wednesday, the justices will hear their first major challenge to Trump’s claims of unilateral executive power. And the outcome is likely to turn on three doctrines that have been championed by the court’s conservatives.

First, they say the Constitution should be interpreted based on its original meaning. Its opening words say: “All legislative powers … shall be vested” in Congress, and the elected representatives “shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposes and excises.”

Second, they believe the laws passed by Congress should be interpreted based on their words. They call this “textualism,” which rejects a more liberal and open-ended approach that included the general purpose of the law.

Trump and his lawyers say his sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs were authorized by the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, or IEEPA.

That 1977 law says the president may declare a national emergency to “deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat” involving national security, foreign policy or the economy of the United States. Faced with such an emergency, he may “investigate, block … or regulate” the “importation or exportation” of any property.

Trump said the nation’s “persistent” balance of payments deficit over five decades was such an “unusual and extraordinary threat.”

In the past, the law has been used to impose sanctions or freeze the assets of Iran, Syria and North Korea or groups of terrorists. It does not use the words “tariffs” or “duties,” and it had not been used for tariffs prior to this year.

The third doctrine arose with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and is called the “major questions” doctrine.

He and the five other conservatives said they were skeptical of far-reaching and costly regulations issued by the Obama and Biden administrations involving matters such as climate change, student loan forgiveness or mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations for 84 million Americans.

Congress makes the laws, not federal regulators, they said in West Virginia vs. Environmental Protection Agency in 2022.

And unless there is a “clear congressional authorization,” Roberts said the court will not uphold assertions of “extravagant statutory power over the national economy.”

Now all three doctrines are before the justices, since the lower courts relied on them in ruling against Trump.

No one disputes that the president could impose sweeping worldwide tariffs if he had sought and won approval from the Republican-controlled Congress. However, he insisted the power was his alone.

In a social media post, Trump called the case on tariffs “one of the most important in the History of the Country. If a President is not allowed to use Tariffs, we will be at a major disadvantage against all other Countries throughout the World, especially the ‘Majors.’ In a true sense, we would be defenseless! Tariffs have brought us Great Wealth and National Security in the nine months that I have had the Honor to serve as President.”

Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer, his top courtroom attorney, argues that tariffs involve foreign affairs and national security. And if so, the court should defer to the president.

“IEEPA authorizes the imposition of regulatory tariffs on foreign imports to deal with foreign threats — which crucially differ from domestic taxation,” he wrote last month.

For the same reason, “the major questions doctrine … does not apply here,” he said. It is limited to domestic matters, not foreign affairs, he argued.

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh has sounded the same note in the past.

Sauer will also seek to persuade the court that the word “regulate” imports includes imposing tariffs.

The challengers are supported by prominent conservatives, including Stanford law professor Michael McConnell.

In 2001, he and John Roberts were nominated for a federal appeals court at the same time by President George W. Bush, and he later served with now-Justice Neil M. Gorsuch on the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

He is the lead counsel for one group of small-business owners.

“This case is what the American Revolution was all about. A tax wasn’t legitimate unless it was imposed by the people’s representatives,” McConnell said. “The president has no power to impose taxes on American citizens without Congress.”

His brief argues that Trump is claiming a power unlike any in American history.

“Until the 1900s, Congress exercised its tariff power directly, and every delegation since has been explicit and strictly limited,” he wrote in Trump vs. V.O.S. Selections. “Here, the government contends that the President may impose tariffs on the American people whenever he wants, at any rate he wants, for any countries and products he wants, for as long as he wants — simply by declaring longstanding U.S. trade deficits a national ‘emergency’ and an ‘unusual and extraordinary threat,’ declarations the government tells us are unreviewable. The president can even change his mind tomorrow and back again the day after that.”

He said the “major questions” doctrine fully applies here.

Two years ago, he noted the court called Biden’s proposed student loan forgiveness “staggering by any measure” because it could cost more than $430 billion. By comparison, he said, the Tax Foundation estimated that Trump’s tariffs will impose $1.7 trillion in new taxes on Americans by 2035.

The case figures to be a major test of whether the Roberts court will put any legal limits on Trump’s powers as president.

But the outcome will not be the final word on tariffs. Administration officials have said that if they lose, they will seek to impose them under other federal laws that involve national security.

Still pending before the court is an emergency appeal testing the president’s power to send National Guard troops to American cities over the objection of the governor and local officials.

Last week, the court asked for further briefs on the Militia Act of 1908, which says the president may call up the National Guard if he cannot “with the regular forces … execute the laws of the United States.”

The government had assumed the regular forces were the police and federal agents, but a law professor said the regular forces in the original law referred to the military.

The justices asked for a clarification from both sides by Nov. 17.

Both suspects, who were arrested earlier this week, have denied involvement in stealing priceless Napoleonic-era jewellery that remains missing.

The Paris prosecutor says two more people have been handed preliminary charges for their alleged involvement in a recent jewel heist at France’s Louvre Museum, days after they were arrested by Paris police as part of a sweeping probe.

Paris Public Prosecutor Laure Beccuau said in a statement on Saturday that a 37-year-old suspect was charged with theft by an organised gang and criminal conspiracy, while the other, a 38-year-old woman, is accused of being an accomplice.

Both have been incarcerated and both denied involvement, said Beccuau.

The male suspect has been placed in pre-trial detention pending a hearing to take place in the coming days, said the prosecutor, adding that he had been known to the judicial authorities for previous theft offences.

Beccuau justified the detention of the woman, who lives in the French capital’s northern suburb of La Courneuve, on the grounds of a “risk of collusion” and “disturbance of public order”.

The woman’s lawyer, Adrien Sorrentino, told reporters his client is “devastated” because she disputes the accusations.

“She does not understand how she is implicated in any of the elements she is accused of,” he said.

Five people were arrested by Paris police on Wednesday in connection with the case, including one who was identified by his DNA at the crime scene. Three of them have been released without charges, Beccuau said. Seven people have been arrested in total.

Last month, thieves wielding power tools raided the Louvre, the world’s most visited art museum, in broad daylight, taking just seven minutes to steal jewellery worth an estimated $102m.

French authorities initially announced the arrest of two male suspects over the Louvre robbery.

The two men were charged with theft and criminal conspiracy after “partially admitting to the charges”, Beccuau said this week.

They are suspected of being the two who broke into the gallery while two accomplices waited outside.

Both lived in the northeastern Paris suburb of Aubervilliers.

One is a 34-year-old Algerian national living in France, who was identified by DNA traces found on one of the scooters used to flee the heist. The second man is a 39-year-old unlicensed taxi driver.

Both were known to the police for having committed thefts.

The first was arrested as he was about to board a plane for Algeria at Paris Charles de Gaulle airport.

The second was apprehended shortly after near his home, and there was no evidence to suggest that he was planning to go abroad, prosecutors said.

The stolen loot remains missing.

The thieves dropped a diamond- and emerald-studded crown that once belonged to Empress Eugenie, the wife of Napoleon III, as they escaped.

The burglars made off with eight other items of jewellery.

Among them are an emerald-and-diamond necklace that Napoleon I gave his second wife, Empress Marie-Louise, and a diadem that once belonged to the Empress Eugenie, which is dotted with nearly 2,000 diamonds.

Last week, the Louvre director told the French Senate the museum’s security operations “did not detect the arrival of the thieves soon enough”.

“Today we are experiencing a terrible failure at the Louvre, which I take my share of responsibility in,” the director said, adding that she submitted her resignation to Culture Minister Rachida Dati, who turned it down.

Reporting from Washington — The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld highly partisan state election maps that permit one party to win most seats, even when most voters cast ballots for the other side.

Partisan gerrymandering has allowed Republicans to control power in several closely divided states. And it has been repeatedly condemned for depriving citizens of a fair vote and letting politicians rig the outcomes.

But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., speaking for a 5-4 conservative majority, ruled that citizens may not sue in federal court over the issue.

Partisan gerrymandering claims “present political questions beyond the reach of federal courts,” he said, tossing out lower court rulings that North Carolina’s Republicans and Maryland’s Democrats had drawn skewed districts to entrench their party in power.

Although the Supreme Court has repeatedly said racial gerrymandering is unconstitutional, it has never struck down an election map because it was unfairly partisan, despite four decades of lawsuits over the issue.

Thursday’s decision goes even further, closing the courthouse door to future claims. “Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions,” he wrote in Rucho vs. Common Cause.

The court’s four liberal justices dissented, warning that new technology has made partisan gerrymandering easier and more precise than ever before.

“These are not your grandfather’s — let alone the framers’ — gerrymanders,” Justice Elena Kagan said.

“The partisan gerrymanders here debased and dishonored our democracy, turning upside-down the core American idea that all governmental power derives from the people,” she said, reading her dissent in the court. “Of all the time to abandon the court’s duty to declare the law, this was not the one. The practices challenged in these cases imperil our system of government.”

The ruling substantially raises the stakes for the 2020 election. In many states, whichever party controls the state legislature and the governor’s office at that time will be in a prime position to gerrymander electoral districts in their favor and lock in political power for years to come.

“This is obviously a deeply disappointing outcome,” said Allison Riggs, a voting rights lawyer who represented the League of Women Voters in the North Carolina case. There, the state’s Republican leaders drew an election map that aimed to lock in 10 of 13 seats for the GOP.

“Unlike citizens in some other states, North Carolinians cannot force redistricting reform upon recalcitrant legislators,” Riggs said. “We must raise our voices even more loudly, demanding change.”

While reform advocates were distraught over the decision — envisioning an era of ruthless, no-holds-barred gerrymandering — there is reason to believe the result may not be as drastic as feared.

Numerous states, including California, have taken the line-drawing process away from politicians and placed it in the hands of independent commissioners charged with drawing fair and competitive political maps.

Roberts appeared to endorse these state reforms, even though he voted in dissent four years ago in an Arizona case to strike down these voter initiatives as improper. He said then the power to draw election districts was reserved to the state legislature alone.

“Where we go from here is where we’ve been,” said Justin Levitt, an election law expert at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. “Most of the real action has been in state courts or through ballot initiatives. … We are back to a limited set of tools, but tools that are still immensely powerful.”

States are also getting more involved. He noted that state supreme courts in Pennsylvania and Florida have struck down maps as overly partisan. The Supreme Court’s decision blocks federal lawsuits over gerrymandering, but it does not alter the authority of state courts to make rulings based on their own state constitutions. In 2018, voters in five states — Colorado, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio and Utah — overhauled their redistricting processes by creating independent or bipartisan map-drawing commissions.

This year’s cases began with the 2010 midterm elections, in which Republicans won sweeping victories and took full control in politically divided states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and North Carolina. Armed with new census data, GOP lawmakers drew election maps that all but guaranteed their candidates would win a majority. In Pennsylvania, Republicans won 13 of 18 congressional seats, and 12 of 16 in Ohio.

Last year, however, political reformers had high hopes that Justice Anthony M. Kennedy would join the four liberals and cast the crucial fifth vote against partisan gerrymandering. He had voiced repeated concern that voters were being cheated if politicians could decide the outcomes in advance.

But those hopes were dashed last June when the chief justice engineered a procedural ruling that scuttled a gerrymandering case from Wisconsin.

Kennedy then retired, and his replacement, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, cast the fifth vote with Roberts on Thursday to close the doors to these claims.

Justices reviewed two cases in reaching the decision.

In North Carolina, Republican leaders flatly admitted they drew an election map for “partisan advantage.” One state leader said he drew a map to give Republicans a 10-to-3 advantage, only because he could not devise a map that would yield an 11-to-2 advantage.

In Maryland, Democratic leaders shifted hundreds of thousands of voters with the aim of ousting a veteran Republican from Congress and creating a reliably Democratic district.

A three-judge court in North Carolina declared the election map unconstitutional and said it deprived Democrats of a fair vote. Another three-judge panel ruled Maryland’s Democrats deprived Republicans of a fair vote and free election.

In January, the justices agreed to hear appeals from both states. Last month, the court also put on hold gerrymandering rulings from Ohio and Michigan.

The chief justice wrote one opinion for the two cases and overturned the rulings from North Carolina and Maryland. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh signed on to the Roberts opinion.

Joining Kagan in dissent were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

More stories from David G. Savage »

Thirty-four children were among 78 people killed in the deadly blaze, which occurred during the school holidays.

A Turkish court has sentenced 11 people to life in prison over a fire that killed 78 people at a hotel in a ski resort in northwest Turkiye’s Bolu mountains in January.

Among those sentenced on Friday were Halit Ergul – the owner of the Grand Kartal Hotel, which sits in the Kartalkaya ski resort about 295km (183 miles) east of Istanbul – according to state-run broadcaster TRT Haber.

The court also sentenced Ergul’s wife, Emine Ergul, and their daughters, Elif Aras and Ceyda Hacibekiroglu – all of whom were part of the hotel’s management team.

The deadly blaze broke out overnight in the restaurant of the Grand Kartal on January 21, quickly engulfing the 12-storey hotel, where 238 guests were staying.

Thirty-four children were among 78 people killed in the fire, which occurred during the school holidays when many families from Ankara and Istanbul head to the Bolu mountains to ski.

Another 137 people suffered injuries during the incident, as panicked hotel guests were forced to jump from windows in the middle of the night.

Also sentenced on Friday were the hotel’s general manager, Emir Aras, as well as the deputy mayor of Bolu, Sedat Gulener, and the director of another hotel, Ahmet Demir, both of whom were reportedly on the board of directors of the company that owned the Grand Kartal.

There are a total of 32 defendants in the trial, 20 of whom are in pre-trial detention, according to TRT. It’s unclear when the remaining defendants will appear in court.

In total, the convicted were handed 34 aggravated life sentences for the 34 children killed in the disaster. Those in the courtroom greeted the announcement with applause.

The fire sparked nationwide anger in Turkiye, with questions raised over safety measures in place at the hotel after survivors said no fire alarms went off during the incident, and they had to navigate smoke-filled corridors in complete darkness.

Under pressure to act, Turkish authorities quickly arrested nine people in connection with the blaze, while the government appointed six prosecutors to lead an investigation.

Speaking to reporters outside the still-smoking hotel, Interior Minister Ali Yerlikaya pledged that those “responsible for causing this pain will not escape justice”.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced a day of national mourning, as he served as a pallbearer at a funeral ceremony for the victims the following day.

Footage shows FBI and state police vehicles in Dearborn, Michigan, near Fordson High School, conducting an investigation. This comes after FBI Director Kash Patel said in a social media post that multiple people allegedly plotting a violent “terrorist” Halloween weekend attack were arrested.

Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller has told Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents they are legally protected from prosecution and local officials cannot arrest them.

Fox News host Will Cain questioned Miller during an October 24 interview. Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, Cain said, “talked about interfering with, arresting, ICE agents in Illinois”.

Cain asked Miller under what federal authority the Trump administration could arrest Pritzker if the governor tried to arrest ICE agents.

“To all ICE officers, you have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties,” Miller said. “And anybody who lays a hand on you or tries to stop you or tries to obstruct you is committing a felony.”

Miller said his answer applied to any local or state official “who conspires or engages in activity that unlawfully impedes federal law enforcement conducting their duties”.

The day before Miller’s comments, Pritzker signed an executive order establishing the Illinois Accountability Commission to document federal law enforcement actions and refer possible law violations to local and state agencies for investigation. Chicago is the latest target in the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown, and agents have arrested more than 3,000 people there.

Pritzker acknowledged in an October 16 interview that “federal agents typically have federal immunity, but they’re not immune from the federal government holding them accountable and responsible”.

His statement is less sweeping than Miller’s, and Pritzker noted that the federal government can prosecute federal agents.

Immigration agents, like other law enforcement officers, have broad protections when conducting official duties. That doesn’t mean they can’t be held legally accountable if they break state or federal law.

“Federal officials are not categorically immune from state criminal prosecution, even while on duty,” Bryna Godar, a lawyer at the University of Wisconsin’s State Democracy Research Initiative, wrote in a July 17 report.

When contacted for comment, the White House pointed PolitiFact to an October 23 letter that US Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche wrote to California officials.

“The Department of Justice views any arrests of federal agents and officers in the performance of their official duties as both illegal and futile,” Blanche wrote.

He cited several federal laws and provisions, including the US Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. The clause limits when states can prosecute federal agents who break state law, but it does not act as blanket immunity, legal experts said.

Miller’s statement is “wrong on its face”, Steve Vladeck, a Georgetown University constitutional law professor, wrote in his October 27 newsletter.

The federal government can prosecute immigration agents who break the law

Federal immigration agents can’t break the law with impunity.

In 2024, a federal judge convicted and sentenced to federal prison a US Customs and Border Protection agent for using excessive force against two people at the southern border. Department of Homeland Security watchdog officers investigated the case.

The federal government has cited its power to hold agents accountable in court arguments. After a Border Patrol agent shot and killed a 15-year-old Mexican boy at the southern border in 2010, the Justice Department said in a 2019 Supreme Court brief that the federal government investigates allegations of excessive force by agents “and may bring a federal criminal prosecution where appropriate”.

Non-government organisations can also sue the federal government for its agents’ actions. Several groups in Chicago, including journalism organisations, sued the Trump administration saying federal agents are using “a pattern of extreme brutality in a concerted and ongoing effort to silence the press and civilians”.

In that case, federal District Judge Sara Ellis ordered immigration agents not to use tear gas and other riot control tactics unless people are posing an immediate threat. If the agents are going to use tear gas, they are required to give a verbal warning first.

After reports that agents weren’t following the court order, Ellis ordered Gregory Bovino, the senior Border Patrol official overseeing the federal immigration actions in Chicago, to meet with her every weeknight to report all confrontations officers have with the public. A federal appeals court has since temporarily paused Ellis’s order.

Vladeck wrote that even if the Trump administration does not investigate or prosecute immigration agents who might have broken the law, it doesn’t mean the federal government doesn’t have the power to do so.

Pritzker said his state’s commission seeks to document actions that could be prosecuted in the future.

State governments aren’t barred from prosecuting federal agents

State governments can also prosecute immigration agents if they break state law. However, there is a limitation known as supremacy clause immunity, which comes from the US Constitution’s clause that says federal law supersedes conflicting state laws.

Protections against state prosecution for federal agents date back to a 1890 Supreme Court decision. David Neagle, a US marshal assigned to protect a Supreme Court justice, shot and killed a man who assaulted the justice. California arrested Neagle and charged him with murder. The Supreme Court ruled that the state couldn’t prosecute Neagle because he was carrying out official duties.

Generally, federal agents are protected from state prosecution if their actions were authorised by federal law, and if the actions were “necessary and proper” for agents to fulfil their duties.

A federal court ruled in 1990 that a customs agent was immune from state charges for speeding while driving during a drug operation. The agent acted under US laws and was justified in concluding speeding was necessary to fulfil his duties, the court said.

But a US marine wasn’t given immunity in 1990 after he killed a person in a car accident while he was driving in a military convoy in North Carolina.

“In short, while Supremacy Clause immunity grants federal officials a partial shield from state prosecution, that immunity is not absolute,” Godar wrote.

Contrary to Miller’s statement, Vladeck wrote, it’s not a felony “for local or state authorities to arrest someone who they have probable cause to believe committed a state crime”.

If a state brought charges against federal immigration agents, the court would have to determine whether an officer reasonably would have thought the actions were necessary to carry out federal duties.

“That’s a generous standard, to be sure,” Vladeck wrote. “But it is by no means a get-out-of-prosecution-free card.”

Our ruling

Miller said: “To all ICE officers, you have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties.”

Immigration agents, like other law enforcement officers, have broad protections when they’re conducting official duties. But they’re not immune from prosecution if they break state or federal law.

The federal government can and does prosecute federal officers who break the law.

States can’t prosecute agents for breaking state law if the agents were acting under the reasonable confines of their official duties. But those restrictions aren’t absolute.

The statement contains an element of truth; federal immigration agents have some immunity from state prosecution. But the protections aren’t as sweeping as Miller made them sound, giving a different impression. Federal agents can and have been prosecuted by states.

We rate Miller’s statement Mostly False.

The United States Department of Justice has reportedly placed two federal prosecutors, Samuel White and Carlos Valdivia, on administrative leave after they referred to the participants in the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, as “a mob of rioters”.

Documents the two prosecutors had filed in advance of a Thursday sentencing hearing were also amended to remove references to the January 6 attack.

The new filings were made on Wednesday, the same day that the prosecutors received their notices and were locked out of their government devices.

Both were members of the US Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, according to sources who spoke to Reuters and The Associated Press, on condition of anonymity.

The punishment they faced was the latest instance of the administration of President Donald Trump taking action against federal prosecutors who participated in cases the Republican leader perceives as unfavourable.

Trump has long defended the participants in the January 6 attack, going so far as to pardon more than 1,500 rioters who had pending criminal charges or convictions during the first day of his second term.

Another 14 rioters had their sentences commuted. In a presidential statement, Trump called the prosecutions a “grave national injustice”.

The attack on the Capitol was prompted by Trump’s false claims that his defeat in the 2020 presidential election had been “rigged”. Spurred by the misinformation, thousands of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol on the day that lawmakers inside were certifying the Electoral College votes.

More than 100 police officers were hurt, and multiple deaths were attributed to the attack, including a protester who was shot while trying to enter the Speaker’s Lobby and a police officer who collapsed and suffered multiple strokes, potentially due to the stress of being assaulted.

Some officers were beaten with flag poles, fire extinguishers and hockey sticks.

The Justice Department has yet to comment on Wednesday’s suspensions of the two prosecutors.

The lawyers were previously scheduled to appear on Thursday in federal court for the sentencing of Taylor Taranto, a Navy veteran who was among those pardoned by Trump for participating in the January 6 attack.

During that clash, he was observed attempting to breach the Speaker’s Chamber, a restricted area. Taranto had been charged with four misdemeanours for those actions before Trump pardoned his charges.

In May, Taranto was convicted on unrelated charges, including illegally carrying two firearms, the unlawful possession of ammunition, and spreading false information and hoaxes.

Taranto had been arrested on June 29, 2023, near an address in Washington, DC, supposedly linked to former President Barack Obama, one of Trump’s political rivals.

Trump had posted the address on social media, and Taranto proceeded to drive to the area, livestreaming his progress, in an attempt to seek out “tunnels” to enter the residence.

Upon exiting his vehicle and entering a restricted area, he was confronted by Secret Service agents. He allegedly told them, “Gotta get the shot, stop at nothing to get the shot.”

There were reportedly more than 500 rounds of ammunition in his van.

A day earlier, Taranto had also recorded a “hoax” video claiming that a car bomb was headed to the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Taranto’s defence lawyers have described him as a “journalist” and “comedian”. But prosecutors have sought a sentence of more than two years in prison for Taranto.

That sentencing recommendation was kept in the revised documents submitted on Wednesday.

At Thursday’s hearing, US District Judge Carl Nichols praised the suspended prosecutors, White and Valdivia, saying they did a “commendable and excellent job” and displayed the “highest standards of professionalism” in the case.

Nichols ultimately sentenced Taranto to 21 months in prison. Since Taranto has already been in custody for 22 months, he will not serve any additional time.

Career prosecutors are assigned to criminal cases regardless of the presidential administration in power.

But the Trump White House has repeatedly sought to sideline, if not fire, those who prosecuted cases that run contrary to the Republican president’s interests.

In January, for instance, nearly two dozen employees of the US Attorney’s Office in Washington, DC, were fired, many with links to the January 6 prosecutions carried out under former President Joe Biden.

And in June, another three prosecutors involved in the January 6 cases were reportedly fired.

SINGER Chris Brown has been allowed to return to the US from Britain — but only under stringent bail conditions. 

The Forever hitmaker, 36, is accused of attacking music producer Abraham Diaw at the Tape club in London’s Mayfair. 

Yesterday, he won an appeal to vary conditions and is now allowed to leave the UK before his trial next October. 

Judge Tony Baumgartner told the Grammy Award-winner: “You will have to come back to the UK when you are required to do so.” 

Brown, along with Dallas rapper Omololu Akinlolu, 38, denies actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm in February 2023.

He also faces one count of having an offensive weapon — namely a tequila bottle. 

MCQUEEN BEE

Jorgie Porter: I’ve kissed whole village & was lads’ mag babe…I want sex scenes

HOME SWEET HOME

Martin Freeman wins YEAR long battle over £5m mansion

Brown appeared at Southwark Crown Court today wearing a baggy white shirt, black tie and glasses to for an application to vary bail conditions. 

Akinlolu was wearing a cream cricket jumper and brown chinos. 

The pair confirmed their names simultaneously with a ‘yes ma’am’ in front of a public gallery filled with fans of the R and B star. 

The pair are required back at Southwark crown court on January 28 for a pre-trial hearing. 

Brown and Akinlolu will then face a week-long trial on 26 October next year. 

COMEDIAN Steve Coogan will pay substantial damages to a university boss for portraying him as a film’s sexist bully. 

The actor, 60, co-wrote and starred in 2022’s The Lost King, about the quest to uncover the remains of Richard III. 

Richard Taylor was part of the Leicester University team which located the grave of the king — often portrayed as having a hunched back — beneath a car park in the city. 

But Mr Taylor sued for libel after being characterised as “smug, unduly dismissive and patronising”. 

Alan Partridge star Coogan is a vocal campaigner for media fairness. 

Last year, a judge found Coogan and two production companies “knowingly misrepresented facts” in the film, starring Sally Hawkins and Harry Lloyd. 

FULL FRONTAL

Katy Perry & Justin hold hands at strip bar during 1st public appearance

BUSTED!

Anne Hathaway ‘arrested’ by Sabrina Carpenter with fuzzy pink handcuffs in NYC

Yesterday, lawyers for Mr Taylor told London’s High Court the parties had settled out of court and that he was being paid “substantial damages”. 

Producers will also make changes to the film. 

Mr Taylor called it vindication after “a long and gruelling battle”. 

Mrs Justice Collins Rice said: “These were momentous historical events and finding yourself represented in a feature film about them must be an unsettling experience, even in the best of circumstances.  

“I hope that this very clear statement and the settlement… will help Mr Taylor put this particular experience behind him. ” 

Coogan, his production company Baby Cow, and Pathe Productions were not represented in court and did not attend. 

However, the star said he was consulting lawyers over remarks made by Mr Taylor — and insisted of his film: “It is the story I wanted to tell, and I am happy I did.” 

Istanbul Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu, whose March arrest sparked nationwide protests, denies all the charges against him.

A Turkish court has filed new charges against opposition leader Ekrem Imamoglu, whose arrest in March sparked mass antigovernment protests.

The move by prosecutors on Monday against the jailed Istanbul mayor stems from an investigation launched last week into alleged links to a businessman arrested in July for carrying out intelligence activities on behalf of foreign governments.

The charges are part of what Imamoglu’s Republican People’s Party, or CHP, has labelled a long-running crackdown on the opposition.

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government rejects this accusation and insists that Turkiye’s judiciary is independent and the charges and investigations are based squarely on the opposition’s involvement in corruption and other illegal activities.

Imamoglu’s arrest in March on corruption charges caused nationwide protests while he received a jail sentence in July for insulting and threatening the chief Istanbul prosecutor.

The state-run Anadolu news agency said Imamoglu – Erdogan’s main political rival – is suspected, among other things, of transferring personal data of Istanbul residents as part of an effort to secure international funding for his presidential campaign.

Imamoglu has denied all the charges, both in court and on social media.

“Such a slander, lie and conspiracy wouldn’t even cross the devil’s mind!” he wrote on X. “We are facing a shameful indecency that can’t be described with words.”

Imamoglu’s former campaign manager, Necati Ozkan, was also charged alongside Merdan Yanardag, editor-in-chief of the television news channel Tele1.

The channel, which is critical of the government, was seized by the state on Friday, citing the espionage accusations.

Waves of arrests

Hundreds of supporters rallied outside Istanbul’s main courthouse on Sunday as Imamoglu was questioned by prosecutors. It was the first time he had left Istanbul’s Marmara Prison on the outskirts of Istanbul in seven months.

Critics view his detention and the subsequent additional charges as part of a broader crackdown on the opposition, which made significant gains in last year’s local elections.

CHP mayors and municipalities have faced waves of arrests throughout the year on corruption-related charges.

Erdogan has denied accusations of political interference in the judiciary.

On Friday, an Ankara court dismissed a bid to oust Ozgur Ozel as leader of the CHP in a case centred on allegations of vote buying and procedural irregularities at the party’s 2023 congress.

A British soldier charged with murder over the Bloody Sunday massacre has been acquitted by a Belfast court, in a verdict condemned by victims’ relatives and Northern Ireland’s political leader.

The former British paratrooper, known as Soldier F under a court anonymity order, was accused of murdering James Wray and William McKinney and attempting to murder five others when soldiers opened fire on unarmed Catholic civil rights marchers in Derry more than 50 years ago.

Belfast Crown Court was silent on Thursday as Judge Patrick Lynch read the verdict acquitting Soldier F of two charges of murder and five of attempted murder. Soldier F listened to the verdict from behind a thick blue curtain, hidden from view in the packed courtroom.

On January 30, 1972, British paratroopers opened fire on unarmed civil rights protesters as more than 10,000 people marched in Derry. British soldiers shot at least 26 unarmed civilians. Thirteen people were killed, while another man died from his injuries four months later.

The massacre became a pivotal moment in the Troubles, helping to fuel nearly three decades of violence between Irish nationalists seeking civil rights and a united Ireland, pro-British unionists wanting Northern Ireland to remain in the United Kingdom, and the British Army. A 1998 peace deal largely ended the bloodshed.

Lynch said in his verdict that he was satisfied that soldiers had lost all sense of military discipline and opened fire with intent to kill and that “those responsible should hang their heads in shame”.

But he said the case fell short of the burden of proof.

“Delay has, in my view, seriously hampered the capacity of the defence to test the veracity and accuracy of the hearsay statements,” he said.

An initial investigation into the massacre — the Widgery Tribunal, an investigation held in 1972 — largely cleared the soldiers and British authorities of responsibility.

A second investigation, the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, also known as the Saville Inquiry, found in June 2010 that there had been no justification for any of the shootings and found that paratroopers had fired at fleeing unarmed civilians.

Following the Saville Inquiry, police in Northern Ireland launched a murder investigation, with prosecutors finding that one former soldier would face trial for two murders and five attempted murders.

Prosecutors have previously ruled there was insufficient evidence to charge 16 other former British soldiers.

Soldier F was not called to give evidence during the one-month trial that was heard without a jury. He had previously told investigators he no longer had a reliable recollection of the massacre.

Mickey McKinney, brother of William McKinney, one of the two victims named in the case, denounced the verdict outside the courtroom on Thursday.

“Soldier F has been discharged from the defendant’s criminal dock, but it is one million miles away from being an honourable discharge,” McKinney said. “Soldier F created two young widows on Bloody Sunday, he orphaned 12 children, and he deprived dozens of siblings of a loving brother,”

McKinney said he “firmly” blamed the British government for the trial’s outcome.

“The blame lies firmly with the British state, with the RUC [the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Northern Irish police], who failed to investigate the murders on Bloody Sunday properly, or indeed at all,” McKinney said.

Following Thursday’s verdict, a spokesperson for the UK government said the UK is “committed to finding a way forward that acknowledges the past, whilst supporting those who served their country during an incredibly difficult period in Northern Ireland’s history”.

Northern Ireland’s First Minister Michelle O’Neill, who is vice president of the Sinn Fein pro-Irish unity party, called the verdict “deeply disappointing”.

“The continued denial of justice for the Bloody Sunday families is deeply disappointing,” she wrote on X. “Not one British soldier or their military and political superiors has ever been held to account. That is an affront to justice.”

The lawsuit comes amid growing concerns about how AI fuels the spread of misinformation.

Conservative activist Robby Starbuck sued Google, alleging that the tech giant’s artificial intelligence systems generated “outrageously false” information about him.

On Wednesday, Starbuck said in the lawsuit, filed in Delaware state court, that Google’s AI systems falsely called him a “child rapist,” “serial sexual abuser” and “shooter” in response to user queries and delivered defamatory statements to millions of users.

Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda said most of the claims were related to mistaken “hallucinations” from Google’s Bard large language model that the company worked to address in 2023.

“Hallucinations are a well-known issue for all LLMs, which we disclose and work hard to minimise,” Castaneda said. “But as everyone knows, if you’re creative enough, you can prompt a chatbot to say something misleading.”

Starbuck is best known for opposing diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

“No one — regardless of political beliefs — should ever experience this,” he said in a statement about the lawsuit. “Now is the time for all of us to demand transparent, unbiased AI that cannot be weaponized to harm people.”

Starbuck made similar allegations against Meta Platforms in a separate lawsuit in April. Starbuck and Meta settled their dispute in August, and Starbuck advised the company on AI issues under the settlement.

According to Wednesday’s complaint, Starbuck learned in December 2023 that Bard had falsely connected him with white nationalist Richard Spencer. The lawsuit said that Bard cited fabricated sources and that Google failed to address the statements after Starbuck contacted the company.

Starbuck’s lawsuit also said that Google’s Gemma chatbot disseminated false sexual assault allegations against him in August based on fictitious sources. Starbuck also alleged the chatbot said that he committed spousal abuse, attended the January 6 Capitol riots and appeared in the Jeffrey Epstein files, among other things.

Starbuck said he has been approached by people who believed some of the false accusations and that they could lead to increased threats on his life, noting the recent assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

Starbuck asked the court for at least $15m in damages.

Starbuck lawsuit comes amid growing concerns that AI-generated content has become easy to create and can facilitate the spread of misinformation. As Al Jazeera previously reported, Google’s VEO3 AI video maker allowed users to make deceptive videos of news events.

Alphabet — Google’s parent company’s stock is relatively flat on the news of the lawsuit. As of 2:30pm in New York (18:30 GMT), it is up by 0.06 percent.

Shots were fired outside Serbia’s parliament in Belgrade, injuring a supporter of President Aleksandar Vucic, who called the incident as a “terrorist attack”. Police say the 70-year-old suspect acted alone after setting a tent ablaze near a pro-government encampment amid year-long anti-Vucic protests.

RAPPER Nelly was accused of taking writer credit on song he didn’t write on his hit albums Country Grammar and Nellyville in a massive $10 million lawsuit. 

The U.S. Sun can exclusively reveal that the Hot In Herre artist was sued in federal court in May after a lawsuit was initially lobbed at him in a local Missouri court in 2024. 

Production company D2 filed an amended complaint against Nelly, 50, in August. 

The suit read “D2 is a production company started in a local community skating rink by twin brothers Darren Stith and David Stith.

“D2 was known for developing producers and talents and giving them an opportunity to further their art and careers.”

The brothers claimed: “They were directly responsible for finding, nurturing, and bringing to the public the music of Nelly and the group known as the ‘St. Lunatics.’”

Read More Nelly and Ashanti

beach babe

00s RnB legend, 45, strips off to swimsuit on holiday with rap star husband

St. Lunatics was made up of Nelly, Ali Jones, Torri Harper, Robert Kyjuan Cleveland  and Lavell Webb, aka City Spud.

In the suit, D2 alleged that they had a contract with both Nelly and the St. Lunatics, separately, but that they released the Ride Wit Me rapper from his contract with them in June of 2000, with a $75,000 payment.

D2 claimed that Nelly, in a secret agreement, claimed a writer credit on songs that weren’t written by him, and were actually written with the St. Lunatics, which made it so the artists were able to avoid paying D2 royalties on those songs.

“The Songs, which were included on the Country Grammar and Nellyville albums, sold over twenty million copies.

“D2 was never paid its portion of the revenues that were legally due to D2 under Lunatic Agreements with Harper, Cleveland, and Jones (and then the Publishing Agreement), but went to Nelly instead under the Secret Arrangement,” the suit went on to allege. 

Nelly and the St. Lunatics are being sued by D2 for more than $10,000,000 for breach of contract, fraud, conspiracy and breach of good faith and fair dealing. 

D2 is also suing Nelly specifically for tortious interference, which essentially means the rapper putrposely interfered with D2’s business. 

The suit said the Air Force One’s rapper “intentionally induced, and caused an interruption of D2’s contractual relationship with, and its business expectancy with, Harper, Cleveland, and Jones, by proposing, negotiating, entering into, and implementing the Secret Arrangement.

“Nelly knew or should have known that his actions would interfere with the Lunatic Agreements and cause D2 to lose revenue it was entitled to receive from the Songs pursuant to the Lunatic Agreements, and later, through the Publishing Agreement,” the suit claimed. 

In September, Nelly, along with Cleveland and Harper, attempted to get the suit dismissed. 

The case is ongoing. 

Earlier this week, Nelly’s wife, Ashanti, was seen sporting a bathing suit on a trip to Barbados just after her 45th birthday on October 13.

Nelly was not seen during the outing, though their child, Kareem Kenkaide ‘KK’ Haynes, was with her for the trip.

She and Nelly welcomed their son in July of last year. 

ON SCREEN

Recently, Nelly and Ashanti landed their own reality series after splitting up and later reuniting.

The pair dated on and off for 10 years after first getting together in 2003, but thought their 2013 breakup was final.

However, they surprised fans by getting back together a decade later. 

Wasting no time, Nelly and Ashanti tied the knot just three months after making their reunion public. 

The trailer for Nelly & Ashanti: We Belong Together was released ahead of the show’s premiere in June.

Fans quickly took to the comments on the first-look, with one saying, “This is the show I never knew I needed.”

Another wrote: “We’re all rooting for you, Nelly and Ashanti!”

FOOLED FOR LOVE

Dating app conman robbed me of £90k… it could happen to anyone

HOUSE THAT

Five home improvements you can get for FREE to help cut £2,000 off energy bills

A third added: “So here for these two being happy and in love.”

The show’s debut came just hours after The Sun exclusively revealed the truth behind rumors that Nelly had cheated on Ashanti.

Mahmoud Khalil, a pro-Palestinian activist and US resident, appeared before a federal appeals court in Philadelphia as Trump administration lawyers push to deport him. His case, tied to campus activism at Columbia University, has become a test of free speech and political dissent rights.

Dissenting justice says decision ‘erodes core constitutional principles’ and risks violating freedom of expression.

A United States court of appeals has ruled that the administration of President Donald Trump can move forward with plans to deploy soldiers to Portland, Oregon, despite the absence of any serious emergency and the objections of state and local officials.

The Monday ruling by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court will allow the Trump administration to send 200 National Guard members to the Democrat-run city.

“After considering the record at this preliminary stage, we conclude that it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority” when he federalised the state’s National Guard, the three-judge panel stated.

The Trump administration has deployed armed forces to Democrat-run cities across the country, along with aggressive immigration raids in which heavily-armed federal agents wearing masks have pulled people off the streets, demanding that they prove their legal status.

Many US citizens have also been swept up in those raids, during which civil liberty groups have accused immigration agents of operating based on racial profiling, and detaining people without cause.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) expressed disappointment in the court’s decision.

“As the founders emphasised, domestic deployment of troops should be reserved for rare, extreme emergencies as a last resort, but that is far from what the Trump administration is doing in Portland, Chicago, Los Angeles, and DC,” Hina Shamsi, the director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, said in a statement.

“The presence of troops in otherwise beautiful vibrant American cities erodes a sense of safety and undermines the core freedoms to assemble and voice dissent.”

The Trump administration has claimed that Portland is “war-ravaged” by protesters, who it says are blocking immigration enforcement measures, despite the absence of any serious crisis conditions in the city. Trump and his allies have often employed vague allegations of emergency conditions as a pretext for wielding extraordinary powers both at home and abroad.

Demonstrators have worn costumes while protesting outside of immigration facilities, sometimes donning dinosaur and frog outfits and blasting music. Federal agents have faced criticism of using excessive force against peaceful demonstrators.

“Given Portland protesters’ well-known penchant for wearing chicken suits, inflatable frog costumes, or nothing at all when expressing their disagreement with the methods employed by ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement], observers may be tempted to view the majority’s ruling, which accepts the government’s characterization of Portland as a war zone, as merely absurd,” Circuit Judge Susan Graber wrote after casting the dissenting vote on the panel’s ruling.

“But today’s decision is not merely absurd. It erodes core constitutional principles, including sovereign States’ control over their States’ militias and the people’s First Amendment rights to assemble and to object to the government’s policies and actions.”