Courts

REALITY TV star Paul Preece Jr who won the Netflix survival show Outlast has been charged with raping a child.

The 51-year-old was arrested in Tennessee on Friday and booked into Knox County Jail.

Jail records show Preece has also been charged with aggravated sexual battery and attempted rape of a child, The Daily Mail reports.

The age of the victim has not yet been released.

Preece is currently being held on a $150,000 bond and will be required to wear a GPS tracker upon release.

His arrest comes after a capias warrant was issued, according to TMZ.

The court-ordered warrant is typically used when a person fails to appear in court, violates bond conditions, or neglects to pay court-ordered fines or child support.

Preece rose to prominence after competing on the first season of Outlast in 2023.

The gruelling reality show sees a group of contestants trying to survive remote Alaskan terrain in punishing conditions for a chance at a $1 million prize.

Sixteen participants are dropped by parachute into the wilderness before being divided into teams.

Season one was filmed on the Neka River on Chichagof Island, while series two moved south of Petersburg to Little Duncan Bay.

Unlike many competition shows, contestants cannot compete alone.

Participants are allowed to switch teams throughout the competition.

The only way to leave the game is to quit.

Preece won the inaugural season alongside teammates Seth Lueker and Nick Radner.

Season two landed in the Global Top 10 in 22 countries.

Two Texas men, Drake Vliem II and Drew Haas, won the million-dollar pay-out in the second series.

The series was renewed for a third season in February 2025.

RAPPER Sean “Diddy” Combs will be getting out of the slam faster than expected amid his battle to appeal his four-year sentence.

The hip-hop mogul, locked up on prostitution-related charges, will now walk free a month and a half earlier than his previous release date of June 4, 2028.

He will now be released on April 25, 2028 according to Federal Bureau of Prisons records obtained by Page Six.

The 56-year-old music legend, currently serving a 50-month sentence at Fort Dix Federal Correctional Institution in New Jersey, earned the early release after being accepted into a drug-abuse rehabilitation program in November.

A rep for Diddy said at the time: “Mr. Combs is an active participant in the Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP) and has taken his rehabilitation process seriously from the start.

“He is fully engaged in his work, focused on growth, and committed to positive change.”

brutal MOMENT

I looked Diddy in the eye as Cassie gave evidence… his reaction left me cold

DIDDY CLAIMS

Justin Bieber finally breaks silence on rumors he was abused by P Diddy

This isn’t the first shake-up in Diddy‘s prison saga.

His sentence initially pegged at May 8, 2028, was bumped to June 4, 2028, last November after he allegedly broke prison rules—reportedly sipping homemade alcohol and taking part in a forbidden three-way phone call.

TMZ revealed the DIY booze involved sugar, Fanta, and apples left to ferment for two weeks.

Diddy’s team, however, defended the call, claiming it was protected under attorney-client privilege.

His spokesperson told Page Six: “Mr. Combs is in his first week at FCI Fort Dix and is focused on adjusting, working on himself, and doing better each day.

“As with any high-profile individual in a new environment, there will be many rumors and exaggerated stories throughout his time there—most of them untrue.

“We ask that people give him the benefit of the doubt, the privacy to focus on his personal growth with grace and purpose.”

Photos recently published by TMZ offered the first glimpse of Diddy behind bars.

The Bad Boy Records founder, now sporting a gray pullover, sweatpants, and a scruffy gray goatee, appeared to grin at a fellow inmate while strolling a prison corridor.

Reflecting on his fall from grace, Diddy poured out his heart in a four-page apology letter before the sentencing.

He admitted: “I literally lost my mind. I’m sorry for that and always will be… I lost my way. My downfall was rooted in my selfishness.

“I have been humbled and broken to my core… The old me died in jail and a new version of me was born. Prison will change you or kill you – I choose to live.”

Diddy celebrated his 56th birthday behind bars with a pizza dinner and has already taken a prison job doing laundry duty, according to sources.

Meanwhile, legal wrangling continues.

Diddy filed an appeal in December, seeking either immediate release or a reduced sentence, arguing prosecutors failed to prove their case and claiming his original sentence violated his constitutional rights.

Prosecutors pushed back in February.

Locked up since his September 2024 arrest, Diddy was convicted on two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution and acquitted of racketeering and sex trafficking charges, narrowly avoiding a far longer stay behind bars.

Even the White House reportedly got involved, with Diddy’s team seeking a potential pardon from Donald Trump, who acknowledged the request, saying:

“A lot of people have asked me for pardons. I call him Puff Daddy; he has asked me for a pardon.”

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has broadened its prosecution of the protesters involved in a church demonstration to 39 people, up from nine.

The demonstration was part of a backlash to Trump’s deadly immigration surge in the midwestern state of Minnesota, but officials have sought to frame the protest as an attack on religious freedom.

Attorney General Pam Bondi announced the expanded indictment on Friday in a message posted to social media.

“Today, [the Justice Department] unsealed an indictment charging 30 more people who took part in the attack on Cities Church in Minnesota,” Bondi wrote. “At my direction, federal agents have already arrested 25 of them, with more to come throughout the day.”

She added a warning to other protesters who might seek to disrupt a religious service.

“YOU CANNOT ATTACK A HOUSE OF WORSHIP,” Bondi said. “If you do so, you cannot hide from us — we will find you, arrest you, and prosecute you. This Department of Justice STANDS for Christians and all Americans of faith.”

Appealing to Christian voters

Since taking office for a second term, Trump has sought to appeal to Christian conservatives by launching initiatives, for example, to root out anti-Christian bias and prevent alleged acts of Christian persecution, both domestically and in countries like Nigeria.

But critics have accused his administration of attempting to stifle opposition through its prosecution of the Minnesota protest attendees.

Some of those indicted deny even being a part of the January 18 protest. Defendants like former CNN anchor Don Lemon and reporter Georgia Fort say they attended in their capacity as journalists.

Both have pleaded not guilty to the charges and have publicly questioned whether their prosecution is an attempt to curtail freedom of the press.

The superseding indictment, filed on Thursday, levies two counts against the 39 defendants, accusing them of conspiracy against the right of religious freedom and efforts to injure, intimidate or interfere with the exercise of religious freedom.

“While inside the Church, defendants collectively oppressed, threatened and intimidated the Church’s congregants and pastors by physically occupying the main aisle and rows of chairs near the front of the church,” the indictment reads

It also describes the protesters as “engaging in menacing and threatening behavior” by “chanting and yelling loudly” and obstructing exits.

A magistrate judge on January 22 initially rejected the Justice Department’s attempt to charge nine attendees who were at the protest.

But the department sought a grand jury indictment instead, which was filed on January 29 and made public the next day.

A reaction to Trump’s immigration surge

The protest, dubbed “Operation Pullup”, was conceived as a response to the violent immigration crackdown that had unfolded in Minnesota.

Many of the enforcement efforts centred on the metropolitan area that includes the Twin Cities: St Paul and Minneapolis.

Trump had repeatedly blamed the area’s large Somali American population for a welfare fraud scandal involving government funds for programmes like Medicaid and school lunches.

In December, the Trump administration surged federal immigration agents to the region, nicknaming the effort Operation Metro Surge. At its height, as many as 3,000 agents were in the Minneapolis-St Paul area.

But the effort was plagued by reports of excessive violence towards detainees and protesters alike. Videos circulated of officers breaking the car windows of legal observers, pepper-spraying protesters and beating people.

Officers also engaged in the practice of entering homes forcibly without a judicial warrant, which advocates described as a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Cases of unlawful arrests were also reported.

But a turning point came on January 7, when an agent with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was caught on camera shooting into the vehicle of 37-year-old mother Renee Good. She died, and her killing sparked nationwide protests.

Operation Pullup took place at Cities Church in St Paul less than two weeks later.

It was intended as a demonstration against the church’s pastor, David Easterwood, who serves as a local official for ICE.

Several protesters have indicated that they are prepared to fight the government’s charges over the incident, citing their First Amendment rights to free speech.

Some also said that they intended to remain vigilant towards government immigration operations, even after Trump administration officials announced Operation Metro Surge was winding down in mid-February.

“This is not the time to be Minnesota Nice,” one protester, civil rights lawyer Nekima Levy Armstrong, wrote on social media last week. “It’s time for truth, justice, and freedom to prevail.”

US judge says that rapid deportation of migrants to countries other than their own violates due process.

A United States federal judge has ruled that the administration of President Donald Trump had violated the law through the swift deportation of migrants to countries other than their own, without giving them an opportunity to appeal their removal.

US District Judge Brian Murphy declared the policy invalid on Wednesday, teeing up a possible appeal from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to the Supreme Court.

“It is not fine, nor is it legal,” Murphy wrote in his decision, adding that migrants could not be sent to an “unfamiliar and potentially dangerous country” without any legal recourse.

He added that due process – the right to receive fair legal proceedings – is an essential component of the US Constitution.

“These are our laws, and it is with profound gratitude for the unbelievable luck of being born in the United States of America that this Court affirms these and our nation’s bedrock principle: that no ‘person’ in this country may be ‘deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law’,” Murphy said.

The ruling is the latest legal setback in the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign.

Trump has long pledged to remove immigrants from the country who violate the law or are in the country without legal paperwork. But critics argue that his immigration crackdown has been marked by widespread neglect of due process rights.

They also point out that some of the deportees have been in the country legally, with their cases being processed through legal immigration pathways like asylum.

Murphy said in his ruling that the swift nature of the deportation obscures the details of each case, preventing courts from weighing whether each deportation is legal.

“The simple reality is that nobody knows the merits of any individual class member’s claim because [administration officials] are withholding the predicate fact: the country of removal,” wrote Murphy.

In the decision, Murphy also addressed some of the Trump administration’s arguments in favour of swift deportation.

He highlighted one argument, for instance, where the administration asserted it would be “fine” to deport migrants to third-party countries, so long as the Department of Homeland Security was not aware of anyone waiting to kill them upon arrival.

“It is not fine, nor is it legal,” Murphy responded in his decision.

Murphy has previously ruled against efforts to swiftly deport migrants to countries where they have no ties, and over the past year, he has seen some decisions overturned by the Supreme Court.

Noting that trend, Murphy said Wednesday’s decision would not take effect for 15 days, in order to give the administration the opportunity to appeal.

Last year, for instance, the conservative-majority Supreme Court lifted an injunction Murphy issued in April that sought to protect the due process rights of migrants being deported to third-party countries.

The injunction had come as part of a case where the Trump administration attempted to send eight men to South Sudan, despite concerns about human rights conditions there.

Wednesday’s decision, meanwhile, stemmed from a class-action lawsuit brought by immigrants similarly facing deportation to countries they had no relation to.

A lawyer for the plaintiffs, Trina Realmuto from the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, hailed Murphy’s latest ruling.

“Under the government’s policy, people have been forcibly returned to countries where US immigration judges have found they will be persecuted or tortured,” Realmuto said in a statement.

Realmuto added that the ruling was a “forceful statement” about the policy’s constitutionality.

SCOTTY T relies on money from his mum to stay afloat – as his lawyer calls the new dad’s bank balance “bleak”.

The finances of former Geordie Shore star – real name Scott Timlin – were laid bare as he appeared at Southwark Crown Court yesterday alongside Towie star Yazmin Oukhellou and Love Island star Jamie Clayton.

They all pleaded guilty to communicating an invitation or inducement to engage in investment opportunities.

The court heard Timlin has 2.7m followers on Instagram but he relies on nightclub appearances and his income from OnlyFans to make £34,000 a year.

Laura Miller, representing Timlin, said: ‘His post was scripted and he said what he was told to say. He accepts he was reckless.

“Mr Timlin is not a man of extensive means. He earns money via an agent but also does receive other money for example an OnlyFans.

CELEB SCAM

Towie & Love Island stars admit plugging dodgy investments in ‘finfluencer’ plot

SCOTTY’S HELL

‘I was out 7 days a week doing drugs’, says Scotty T as he opens up on arrest

“For the last 12 months his yearly income was around £34,000.

“As often said there is the Instagram world and the reality. Mr Timlin’s bank statements make it very clear the lifestyle he lives in the public eye is not the lifestyle he actually does lead.”

She said he relies on extra money sent by his mother.

She continued:”He made his name on Geordie Shore and won Celebrity Big Brother but that was as far back as 2016.

“Although he’s done some TV work since Geordie Shore ended in 2019 those were the programmes he made his name from.

“He now relies extensively on the promotional world being paid to attend bars and nightclubs for events.”

She said his opening and closing balances for the last three months “make for bleak reading”.

Timlin has recently become a father, and opened up to The Sun about how his son has changed his life.

He joined Geordie Shore in 2012 and gained himself the nickname Turbo T for his womanising ways.

Admitting he was out seven days a week doing cocaine as he opened up about his drug-drive arrest for the first time, he told us: “I felt like I was just getting drunk and I was on coke and all sorts,” he admits.

“It was just like every night getting drunk, waking up and then going out again.”

Timlin, 37, was fined £938, Oukhellou £975 and Clayton was given a £820 fine. All the celebs will pay a £1,000 contribution to prosecution costs.

President Trump calls Supreme Court justices an ’embarrassment to their families’ in 45-minute address to the media.

United States President Donald Trump and his vice president, JD Vance, have launched personal attacks on the justices of the US Supreme Court and their families, after the country’s top court struck down trade tariffs imposed by the White House.

In a 45-minute address to reporters at the White House, the US president heaped criticism on the six justices who ruled against his signature tariff policy in the 6-3 decision by the court on Friday, including Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, whom Trump appointed to the court during his first term.

“I think it’s an embarrassment to their families, you wanna know the truth, the two of them,” Trump said, referring to Justices Gorsuch and Barrett.

“I’m ashamed of certain members of the court – absolutely ashamed – for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country,” Trump added.

Shockingly, Trump also claimed that the Supreme Court “has been swayed by foreign interests”, without providing any evidence.

Trump then warmly praised the three members of the court who dissented in the ruling.

“I’d like to thank and congratulate Justices [Clarence] Thomas, [Samuel] Alito, and [Brett] Kavanaugh for their strength and wisdom and love of our country, which is, right now, very proud of those justices,” Trump said.

“When you read the dissenting opinions, there’s no way that anyone can argue against them,” he said.

Vice President Vance also sharply criticised the justices for their ruling, accusing them of “lawlessness” in a post on X.

“Today, the Supreme Court decided that Congress, despite giving the president the ability to ‘regulate imports’, didn’t actually mean it,” Vance wrote in a post on X.

“This is lawlessness from the Court, plain and simple,” said Vance, whose political profile rose to prominence after writing a memoir about his time at Yale Law School.

Trump and Vance’s comments mark a rare rebuke of the nine-member Supreme Court, which currently has six members appointed by Trump’s Republican Party and has often ruled in favour of his administration’s policies.

A REALITY telly pal of Jennifer Lopez caught speeding in her £200,000 Bentley has been banned.

Amanda Cronin begged JPs to let her keep her licence as she needed a car to care for her mum — who “won’t accept” taxis.

But magistrates, who heard she already had nine penalty points from speeding offences, were unmoved and gave her three more.

That took her to 12 and an automatic six-month ban under totting-up rules.

Real Housewives of London star Cronin, 57, was caught by a camera doing 24mph in a 20mph zone in Earls Court, West London, last May.

The ex-model, who dated Wham! star Andrew Ridgeley and counts US singer J-Lo as a pal, argued she needed her £200,000 Bentley Continental to drive from her £4million home in Belgravia, central London, to widowed mum Janet’s home near Soberton, Hants.

NEW TURN

Traitors US and Real Housewives star named as ‘female to talk to’ in Epstein files

REAL NASTY

Real Housewives star announces divorce from husband in post about ‘disrespect’

She said she regularly ­ferried the 85-year-old to medical appointments.

Cronin told Bromley JPs: “She won’t accept going in taxis.

“My mum will suffer if I’m not able to drive her around.”

Magistrate Jo Caseby said: “You’re a good and attentive daughter but there are solutions which can be put in place.”

Cronin, who divorced millionaire energy mogul Mark Daeche in 2019, also owns a £12million home in London’s Mayfair.

She must pay £334 in a fine and costs.

CONAN O’Brien has broken his silence after his friend Rob Reiner was at his party just hours before being killed.

Reiner, 78, and Michele allegedly had their throats slit while they were in bed and their son Nick was charged with murder.

Reiner and Michele had attended O’Brien’s holiday party the night before the killings on December 24, last year.

The couple arrived at that party with Nick because they were reportedly afraid to leave him alone.

Conan O’Brien told The New Yorker: “I knew Rob and Michele, and then increasingly got closer and closer to them, and I was seeing them a lot.

“My wife and I were seeing them a lot, and they were so — they were just such lovely people.

“And to have that experience of saying goodnight to somebody and having them leave and then find out the next day that they’re gone. … I think I was in shock for quite a while afterward. I mean, there’s no other word for it. It’s just very — it’s so awful. It’s just so awful.”

O’Brien admitted it is still “hard for me to comprehend” the tragedy.

Reiner’s son Nick faces a maximum sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole if he’s convicted. 

The death penalty has not been ruled out.

This comes after Reiner told friends he was terrified of his own son and feared he could hurt him just hours before the Hollywood legend and his wife were found dead.

Nick, 32, had been living in the guesthouse of his parents’ $13.5 million Brentwood estate.

He had struggled with drug addiction since his teens, undergone at least 18 stints in rehab and experienced periods of homelessness.

Sources say Nick behaved erratically at the holiday party and unsettled guests.

According to MailOnline, Reiner told friends: “I’m petrified of him”.

“I can’t believe I’m going to say this but I’m afraid of my own son. I think my own son can hurt me.”

At one point, Reiner introduced Nick to Bill Hader.

Nick then interrupted Hader mid-conversation, according to accounts.

Hader reportedly told him he was “in the middle of a private conversation.”

Nick reacted angrily, stood still, stared at Hader and stormed off.

It was moments later that Reiner approached friends and voiced his fear.

Hours after the gathering, prosecutors allege Nick returned home and killed both his parents in the early hours of Sunday, December 14.

On the Sunday afternoon, a masseuse contacted the Reiners’ 27-year-old daughter Romy after being unable to gain entry to the home.

Romy rushed to the house and found her father’s body before fleeing in distress.

She later learned her mother had also been killed.

Billy Crystal was seen outside the home with his wife Janice, wiping away tears as police arrived.

Crystal later joined Albert Brooks, Larry David, Martin Short and Barry Levinson in a statement praising Reiner as “a great comic actor” and “a master storyteller.”

Police said both victims were found in the master bedroom and no other suspects were located.

Nick was arrested around 9pm on Sunday near the Expo/Vermont Metro station.

Earlier that morning, he had checked into a Santa Monica hotel.

About an hour before his arrest, he was seen acting nervously while buying a Gatorade at a gas station.

Nick has been charged with two counts of first-degree murder and is being held without bail.

The legendary career of iconic director Rob Reiner

FAMED actor, director and producer Rob Reiner, 78, died on December 14 alongside his wife Michele Singer, 68, in an apparent homicide.

Here is a look at the prodigious list of achievements the Hollywood powerhouse earned before his tragic and sudden death.

Director’s Beginnings

• Reiner was born in New York City on March 6, 1947, to legendary comedy writer Carl Reiner and singer Estelle Reiner
• He studied at the University of California, Los Angeles film school before breaking into the entertainment industry

Hollywood Career

• Reiner first found fame as an actor playing Michael “Meathead” Stivic on the iconic sitcom All in the Family from 1971 to 1979
• In 1984, he directed his first film This Is Spinal Tap – a mockumentary following a fictional heavy metal band
• Reiner went on to direct cult classic films like The Princess Bride in 1987 and When Harry Met Sally… in 1989
• Other notable movies made by the director include Misery, The American President, and A Few Good Men, which earned an Academy Award nomination for Best Picture
• The production company he co-founded, Castle Rock Entertainment, has also produced hits like Seinfeld and The Shawshank Redemption
• Reiner didn’t halt his acting career either, recently starring in The Wolf of Wall Street in 2013 and The Bear in 2025

Personal Life

• Reiner married actress Penny Marshall in 1971 and adopted her daughter, Tracy, from a previous marriage. The couple divorced in 1981
• He met photographer Michele Singer while shooting When Harry Met Sally
• They married in 1989 and had three children: Jake, born 1991, Nick born 1993, and Romy born 1997)
• Nick opened up about his struggle with drug addiction in 2016. The movie Becoming Charlie, directed by Reiner, was based on Nick’s story
• Reiner was an outspoken Democratic activist and a fierce critic of Donald Trump

RICHMOND, Va. — Democrats passed a new congressional map through the Virginia legislature on Friday that aims to help their party win four more seats in the national redistricting battle. It’s a flex of state Democrats’ political power, however hurdles remain before they can benefit from friendlier U.S. House district boundaries in this year’s midterm elections.

A judge in Tazewell, a conservative area in Southwest Virginia, has effectively blocked a voter referendum on the redrawn maps from happening on April 21 by granting a temporary restraining order, issued Thursday.

Democrats are appealing that decision and another by the same judge, who ruled last month that Democrats illegally rushed the planned voter referendum on their constitutional amendment to allow the remapping. The state’s Supreme Court picked up the party’s appeal of the earlier ruling.

The judge’s order prohibits officials from preparing for the referendum through March 18. But early voting for it was slated to start March 6, meaning Democrats would have to get a favorable court ruling within two weeks to stick with that timeline.

If Democrats get to carry out a referendum, voters will choose whether to temporarily adopt new congressional districts and then return to Virginia’s standard process after the 2030 census. Democrats wanted to publish the new map ahead of the April vote.

President Trump launched an unusual mid-decade redistricting battle last year by pushing Republican officials in Texas to redraw districts to help his party win more seats. The goal was for the GOP to hold on to a narrow House majority in the face of political headwinds that typically favor the party out of power in midterms.

Instead, it created a burst of redistricting efforts nationwide. So far, Republicans believe they can win nine more House seats in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio. Democrats think they can win six more seats in California and Utah, and are hoping to fully or partially make up the remaining three-seat margin in Virginia.

Democratic lawmakers in Virginia have sought to portray their redistricting push as a response to Trump’s overreach.

“The president of the United States, who apparently only one half of this chamber knows how to stand up to, basically directed states to grab power,” Virginia’s Democratic Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell said in February. “To basically maintain his power indefinitely — to rig the game, rig the system.”

Republicans have sounded aghast. House Minority Leader Terry Kilgore described the remap as a way for liberals in northern Virginia’s Arlington, Fairfax and Prince William counties to commandeer the rest of the state.

“In southwest Virginia, we have this saying … They say, ‘Terry, you do a good job up there, but you know, Virginia stops at Roanoke,” Kilgore previously said, referring to how some people across Virginia’s Appalachian region feel unrepresented in state politics. “That’s not going to be the same saying anymore, because Virginia is now going to stop just a little bit west of Prince William County.”

Virginia is currently represented in the U.S. House by six Democrats and five Republicans who ran in districts imposed by a court after a bipartisan legislative commission failed to agree on a map after the 2020 census.

Legislation that would put the Democrats’ more gerrymandered map into effect if voters approve the referendum now awaits the signature of Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger, who has indicated that she would support it.

“Virginia has the opportunity and responsibility to be responsive in the face of efforts across the country to change maps,” Spanberger said as she approved the referendum.

Democratic candidates are already lining up in anticipation. “Dopesick” author Beth Macy and former U.S. Rep. Tom Perriello launched campaigns in red areas that would be moved into districts with more registered Democrats.

Virginia Del. Dan Helmer and former federal prosecutor J.P. Cooney, who helped investigate Trump and was fired by him, have launched campaigns in a formerly rural district that would now mostly include voters just outside the nation’s capital. And former Democratic congresswoman Elaine Luria is mounting a comeback against Republican Rep. Jen Kiggans, who ousted her in 2022, in a competitive district that the map has made slightly more favorable to Democrats.

Diaz writes for the Associated Press.

The United States Supreme Court ruling against the administration of US President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs has left a question unanswered on what is the refund process for the funds collected over the past several months through the tariffs that had been imposed on most US trading partners .

In a 6–3 decision issued on Friday, Chief Justice John Roberts upheld a lower court ruling that found the president’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) exceeded his authority.

The high court did not specify how the federal government would refund the estimated $175bn collected under the tariffs. In his dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh warned that issuing refunds would present practical challenges and said it would be “a mess”.

The case will now return to the Court of International Trade to oversee the refund process.

More than 1,000 lawsuits have already been filed by importers in the trade court seeking refunds, and a wave of new cases is expected. Legal experts say the administration will likely require importers to apply for refunds individually. That process could disproportionately burden smaller businesses affected by the tariffs.

“The government is probably not going to voluntarily pay back the money it unlawfully took. Rather, the government is going to make everyone request a refund through different procedures by filing formal protests. They’re going to delay things procedurally as long as they can. Hiring lawyers and going through these procedures costs money and time,” Greg Shaffer, a law professor at Georgetown University, told Al Jazeera.

“I imagine the largest companies, who have been prepared for this eventuality, will eventually get their money back. But smaller importers, it’s a cost-benefit analysis where they might shrug their shoulders and say it’s not worth going through the hassle to get the unlawfully imposed taxes paid back to them.”

Trump’s path forward

Despite Friday’s ruling, other sweeping levies remain in place. Trump had invoked Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act to impose sector-specific tariffs on steel and aluminium, cars, copper, lumber, and other products, such as kitchen cabinets, worldwide.

On Friday, Trump said he would impose a 10 percent global tariff for 150 days to replace some of his emergency duties that were struck down. The order would be made under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, and the duties would be over and above tariffs that are currently in place, Trump said.

The statute allows the president to impose duties of up to 15 percent for up to 150 days on any and all countries related to “large and serious” balance of payments issues. It does not require investigations or impose other procedural limits.

The president also has other legal avenues available to continue taxing imports aggressively.

“Our trading partners were well aware of the risks the President faced in using IEEPA as the basis for reciprocal and other tariffs. Nevertheless, they chose to conclude deals with Washington, convinced by Washington that other statutes would be utilised to keep the tariffs in place,” Wendy Cutler, vice president of the Asia Society Policy Institute, told Al Jazeera in a statement.

“With respect to China, USTR [United States trade representative] still has an active Section 301 investigation on China’s compliance with the Phase One agreement, which could be a major feature of the back-up plan for Beijing.”

The president is expected to travel to Beijing next month to meet his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, to discuss trade.

“The two main options include Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, the traditional mechanism for imposing tariffs in response to unfair trade practices by other countries. It requires an investigation and a report, but ultimately gives the president considerable discretion to impose tariffs. It has been used in the past and will likely be the most frequently used measure going forward,” Shaffer, the law professor, said.

He noted, however, that the administration’s tariff options could not be applied retroactively, meaning any new tariffs would apply only to future imports rather than covering duties already paid.

Raj Bhala, professor of law at The University of Kansas School of Law, argues there are remedies at the president’s disposal in addition to Section 122. Bhala said that Trump could use Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (also known as the Smoot-Hawley Act). That allows the president to impose a 50 percent tariff to challenge discriminatory trade practices from other countries.

“Each option involves procedural hurdles,” Bhala said.

Congressional pressure

Roberts wrote that the president must “point to clear congressional authorization” to impose tariffs. The ruling has increased pressure on both Trump’s allies and critics in Congress to clarify the scope of executive trade authority.

“What a fantastic ruling for a feckless branch of government. While its current tendency is to abdicate, the court has told Congress to do its job,” a former official in the White House Office of Management and Budget told Al Jazeera in response to the decision.

“Congress must either act with specific legislation, or declare war, which would grant the President the emergency powers to levy tariffs.”

“Congress and the Administration will determine the best path forward in the coming weeks,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said in a post on the social media platform X.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, by contrast, welcomed the ruling, saying it will “finally give families and small businesses the relief they deserve” and that Trump should end “this reckless trade war for good.”

But how that money will get paid back, and if it was already spent, will require Congress to step in.

“If it has been spent, the money will have to be reallocated by Congress. Congress will have to determine how much is owed to importers, pass a law to fund it, and create a mechanism for repayment. There’s also the question of who is entitled to it. Is it only the importer, or does it extend to the end consumer? Where does the line stop?” Babak Hafezi, professor of international business at American University, told Al Jazeera.

“This is not something that will be fixed in 24 hours. It will most likely take years, possibly even a decade, to resolve all the issues this less-than-a-year-old law has imposed on Americans.”

A BRITAIN’S Got Talent star was accused of a child sex offence just days before she was found dead at home, an inquest heard.

Kerri-Anne Donaldson, 38, reached the semi-final of the ITV show in 2014 as part of the group Kings and Queens.

An inquest heard today Kerri-Anne was arrested on suspicion of “child sex offending” but no further details were revealed.

The dancer was detained on June 4, 2023, and questioned at a police station.

She was discovered dead at home in Farnborough, Hampshire, three days later by her sister Cara Donaldson.

There was a note at the top of the stairs urging Cara not to come inside alongside photos of her dog and family.

SCOTTY’S HELL

‘I was out 7 days a week doing drugs’, says Scotty T as he opens up on arrest

CAUGHT OUT

Sisters stole goods from duty free to fund lavish lifestyles including surgery

The song “You are so Beautiful” was also playing when Kerri-Anne was found, the inquest heard.

The court was told the performer’s cause of death was given as hanging.

A post mortem also found she had non-fatal levels of medication in her blood, which were consistent with an overdose.

The inquest heard evidence yesterday from Detective Constable Benjamin Harris, of Hampshire Constabulary, who led the investigation into the unknown accusation against Kerri-Anne.

He said her accuser had let police know the dancer threatened to take her own life “if someone finds out” about the allegation.

Det Con Harris said he had considered the possibility her comments could be a “form of control” against the complainant.

He said: “In my experience in some offences it can often be said without wanting to carry it out.”

The officer told the inquest the suggestion of self-harm was “something we take very seriously” and he reported it to his senior officers and advised his colleagues who arrested Kerri-Anne.

He said following the interview, he graded the dancer’s risk of self-harm as “standard”.

The officer added: “When I spoke to Kerri, which was after the interview, in the cell she presented to me at that time that she was fine, so normal.

“She had no indication that she wanted to take her own life, when that was spoken about with her she gave no indication that would happen.”

Det Con Harris said Kerri-Anne told him she had seen a counsellor previously and added: “She knew how to get help and she was in no way considering harming herself.”

But he told the court “with the benefits of hindsight” he should have included a question about the complainant’s comments when making the risk assessment.

The inquest heard yesterday how following her release from custody, Kerri-Anne failed to return home – causing her family to report her as a missing person.

She was later found at a Travelodge hotel in Woking, Surrey, after taking an overdose.

Cara said her sister told an emergency doctor at St Peter’s Hospital in Surrey that she had wanted to kill herself.

Recalling the tragic statement, she continued: “I just wanted to hug her.”

Psychiatric liaison nurse Serina Juru, who carried out a mental health assessment after the overdose, said today she assessed Kerri-Anne as at a “high and imminent risk of suicide” and rated her risk as level 10 out of 10.

She told the court the dancer said she could be sent to prison if convicted of the offence and that she “could not face that”.

The nurse added: “She wanted to end her life because she was embarrassed about what had happened.”

Ms Juru said she offered Kerri-Anne an “informal” admission to hospital for further assessment or home care support but she refused both that day leading her to start a “high-risk care plan”.

She said the performer also told her that if she was discharged into the care of her sister Cara, she would wait for her to leave to look after her children and then take her own life.

The inquest heard Kerri-Anne was discharged from hospital the following day into Cara’s care when Ms Juru was not on duty.

Psychiatrist Dr David Enright, who had assessed her, said she was “calm” and no longer thinking about suicide.

But Cara said when she drove her sister home on June 6, the dancer told her she had made the decision to take her own life.

She claimed the family had not been given any care plan or advice on how to assist the star when they left the hospital.

Cara also said she asked her sister about the allegation and was told she was not guilty and that it had “all been constructed”.

She said she spent the evening with her sister and was reluctant to leave her alone, saying: “If you do anything, Kerri, that will always be on my shoulders.”

Cara continued: “[Kerri-Anne] joked ‘I am not going to do that’, so I left.

“One of the last messages was ‘Thanks for everything today’ and she gave a heart emoji, I just thought she was OK.”

But when Kerri-Anne did not answer the phone the next morning, Cara went round to her home and discovered her dead.

Describing her sister, she said: “Heart of gold, full of fun, brought happiness to life, especially mine, career-driven, adored her family, adored her friends, fantastic dance teacher, everyone loved her.”

She said Kerri-Anne had been on television a few times and added: “Her main passion was to choreograph dancing.”

The Kings and Queens Latin dance troupe were a big hit with BGT fans, making it all the way to the semi-final of the ITV show.

Kerri-Anne performed alongside Neil and Katya Jones and Kai Widdrington, all of whom became professionals on Strictly Come Dancing.

Following her death, Neil said: “Kerri Anne Donaldson – remember that name and please never forget it because it belongs to a woman who loved to dance, create and perform, she had the cheekiest laugh and a heart of gold.

“She hated getting in the car with me, but would always listen to my crazy ideas, we shared so many moments and stories and she was always the voice of reason.

“Kerri you were my friend and like my big sister.”

Ex-Strictly dancer Joanne Clifton also paid her respects to the “beautiful dancer”.

She said: “I have no words… This is just heartbreaking.. truly devastating.

“We’ve known you and shared the dance floor with you basically all our lives.

“Dance up there with the angels Kerri.. you beautiful dancer, you beautiful soul.”

Amy Dowden echoed those sentiments, writing: “So shocked and sad. Such a beautiful dancer and kind soul.

“Sending love to all your family and friends. Heaven has certainly gained an angel. Keep dancing up there lovely.”

If you are affected by any of the issues raised in this article, please call the Samaritans for free on 116123.

Judge states Trump administration has made ‘one empty threat after another’ to deport Salvadoran national to Africa.

A United States federal judge has ruled that the administration of US President Donald Trump cannot re-detain Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national who was wrongfully deported last year and who the federal government has sought to deport again.

US District Judge Paula Xinis stated on Tuesday that a 90-day detention period had passed without the administration presenting a workable plan to deport Abrego Garcia, whose lawyers say he is being punished because his wrongful detention embarrassed the government.

Xinis said that the government “made one empty threat after another to remove him to countries in Africa with no real chance of success”.

“From this, the court easily concludes that there is no ‘good reason to believe’ removal is likely in the reasonably foreseeable future,” he added.

The ruling is a victory for Abrego Garcia, who has been fighting his attempted deportation by US immigration authorities who have tried to send him to African nations such as Uganda, Eswatini, Ghana, and Liberia. Abrego Garcia was released from an immigration detention facility in December.

His wrongful deportation to El Salvador, where he was held in a prison known for poor conditions and widespread abuse, became an early flashpoint in the Trump administration’s push to deport non-citizens from the US, often with few efforts to abide by due process requirements. The Trump administration had also accused Abrego Garcia of being a member of the criminal group MS-13, without offering any evidence.

His mistaken deportation prompted widespread anger and calls for the Trump administration to bring him back to the US. After initially stating that it had no authority to do so, the Trump administration brought Abrego Garcia back to the US in June following a court order mandating his return. It has since charged him with human smuggling, an allegation that he denies.

A United States court has ordered the administration of President Donald Trump to facilitate the return of a Babson College student, Any Lucia Lopez Belloza, who was wrongfully deported last year.

In his ruling on Tuesday, US District Judge Richard Stearns gave the government two weeks to take steps to bring Lopez Belloza back.

He framed the order as an opportunity to correct a “mistake” – but he did not rule out holding the government in contempt if it failed to take the necessary actions.

“Wisdom counsels that redemption may be found by acknowledging and fixing our own errors,” Stearns wrote.

“In this unfortunate case, the government commendably admits that it did wrong. Now it is time for the government to make amends.”

A surprise trip turned deportation

Lopez Belloza, 19, was arrested on November 20 by immigration agents at Boston’s Logan airport.

The college freshman had been preparing to board a flight home to her family in Texas to surprise them for the Thanksgiving holiday.

She has since told The Associated Press news agency that she was denied access to a lawyer after her initial detention at the airport. The immigration agent told her she would need to sign a deportation document first, according to Lopez Belloza, who said she denied the offer.

For the next two nights, she said she was kept by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in a holding room with 17 other women, without enough room to lie down.

Then, she was loaded onto a deportation flight, which took her to Texas, then to her native Honduras, on November 22.

“I was numb the whole plane ride,” Lopez Belloza told the AP. “I just kept questioning myself. Why is it happening to me?”

Her lawyers, however, had obtained during that time a court order barring her removal from Massachusetts for 72 hours. Lopez Belloza’s deportation violated that court order.

She has remained in Honduras for the last two and a half months, while legal challenges over her case proceeded.

A legal battle

In court, the Trump administration has apologised for the error in Lopez Belloza’s case, acknowledging that a mistake was indeed made.

“On behalf of the government, we want to sincerely apologise,” prosecutor Mark Sauter told the court.

But Sauter rejected accusations that the government wilfully defied the 72-hour court order, saying that Lopez Belloza’s deportation was the mistake of one ICE agent and not an act of judicial defiance.

The government has also argued that Lopez Belloza was subject to a removal order before her November 20 arrest and therefore should not be returned to the US.

Lopez Belloza was brought to the US from Honduras when she was eight years old, and in 2016, she and her mother were ordered to be deported.

But the college freshman said she had no knowledge of any deportation order and has told the media that her previous legal representation had assured her there was no removal order against her.

Nevertheless, the Trump administration has rejected efforts to bring Lopez Belloza back to the country, even on a student visa.

In a February 6 court filing, US Attorney Leah B Foley wrote that a student visa “is unfeasible as the Secretary of State lacks authority to adjudicate visa applications and issue visas”.

“In any event,” Foley added, “Petitioner appears ineligible for a student visa.” She explained that Lopez Belloza “would remain subject to detention and removal if returned to the United States”.

The filing ended with a warning to the court to “refrain from ordering Respondents to return Petitioner to the status quo because this Court lacks authority”.

The Trump administration has questioned the authority of federal courts to intervene in immigration-related matters.

A series of mistakes

Critics, meanwhile, have accused the Trump administration of repeatedly failing to heed court orders it disagrees with.

Lopez Belloza’s case is not the first instance of an immigrant being wrongfully deported since the start of Trump’s second term.

Trump had campaigned on a pledge of mass deportation, and he has followed through with that promise, leading a series of controversial immigration crackdowns that have been accused of violating due process rights.

One of the most high-profile cases came in March 2025, when his administration wrongfully deported a Salvadoran father named Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who lived in Maryland with his wife, a US citizen.

Abrego Garcia had been subject to a 2019 court order barring his removal from the US on the basis that he could face gang violence in El Salvador.

But he was nevertheless sent back to the country and was briefly held in El Salvador’s Center for Terrorism Confinement (CECOT), a maximum-security prison.

On April 10, the US Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration must “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return, largely upholding a lower court’s decision.

But the Trump administration initially argued Abrego Garcia was outside of its power. Then, on June 6, it abruptly announced Abrego Garcia had been returned, only to file criminal charges against him and seek his deportation a second time.

Another case involved a Guatemalan man, identified only by his initials OCG.

He had been under a court protection order that barred him from being returned to Guatemala, for fear that his identity as a gay man would subject him to persecution.

But the Trump administration detained and deported him instead to Mexico, which in turn sent him back to Guatemala. He subsequently went into hiding for his safety.

In June, OCG was returned to the US after a court ordered the Trump administration to facilitate his return. It also noted that OCG’s deportation “lacked any semblance of due process”.

Lopez Belloza continues her studies at Babson College remotely from Honduras as she awaits the outcome of her legal proceedings.

A United States judge has granted an injunction preventing the Department of Defense from stripping Senator Mark Kelly, a military veteran, of his retirement pension and military rank.

The Defense Department had taken punitive action against Kelly for critical statements he had made against President Donald Trump.

But on Thursday, Judge Richard J Leon, an appointee of Republican President George W Bush, issued a forceful rebuke, accusing the Trump administration of trying to stifle veterans’ free speech rights.

Leon directed much of his ruling at Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a senior Trump official who announced on January 5 that Kelly would be censured for what he characterised as “seditious” statements.

“Rather than trying to shrink the First Amendment liberties of retired service members, Secretary Hegseth and his fellow Defendants might reflect and be grateful for the wisdom and expertise that retired service members have brought to public discussions and debate on military matters in our Nation over the past 250 years,” Leon wrote.

“If so, they will more fully appreciate why the Founding Fathers made free speech the first Amendment in the Bill of Rights!”

History of the case

Thursday’s decision comes after Kelly, a Democratic member of Congress, filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration on January 12, alleging “punitive retribution”.

He had drawn the Trump administration’s ire with several public statements questioning the president’s military decisions.

Kelly, who represents the swing state of Arizona, had condemned the administration for sending military troops to quell protests in Los Angeles in June 2025.

Then, in November, he was also one of six former members of the US’s military and intelligence communities to participate in a video reminding current service members of their duty to “refuse illegal orders”.

That video quickly attracted Trump’s attention, and the president issued a string of social media posts threatening imprisonment and even the death penalty.

“This is really bad, and Dangerous to our Country. Their words cannot be allowed to stand. SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP?” Trump wrote in one post.

In another, he suggested a harsher punishment: “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”

Shortly thereafter, the Defense Department announced it had launched an investigation into the video and Kelly specifically, given his role as a retired Navy captain.

Hegseth accused Kelly of using “his rank and service affiliation” to discredit the US armed forces, and he echoed Trump’s claims that the video was “reckless and seditious”.

His decision to pen a formal letter of censure against Kelly prompted the senator to sue.

Such a letter serves as a procedural step towards lowering Kelly’s military rank at the time of his retirement, as well as curbing his post-military benefits.

But Kelly argued that such punishment would serve to dampen the rights of veterans to participate in political discourse – and would additionally hinder his work as a member of Congress.

An exclamation-filled ruling

In Thursday’s ruling, Judge Leon determined that Kelly was likely to prevail on the merits of his case – and, citing the folk singer Bob Dylan, he added that it was easy to see why.

“This Court has all it needs to conclude that Defendants have trampled on Senator Kelly’s First Amendment freedoms and threatened the constitutional liberties of millions of military retirees,” Leon said in his often quippy ruling.

“After all, as Bob Dylan famously said, ‘You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.’”

Leon acknowledged that granting an injunction against the government is an “extraordinary remedy”. But he argued it was necessary, given the gravity of the case.

The judge conceded that the Defense Department does have the ability to restrict the speech of active-service military members, given the need for discipline among troops.

But the Trump administration argued in its court filings that those restrictions extended to retired military veterans as well.

Leon, however, dismissed that assertion with the verbal equivalent of a snort: “Horsefeathers!”

“Speech from retired servicemembers – even speech opining on the lawfulness of military
operations – does not threaten ‘obedience, unity, commitment, and esprit de corps’ in the same way as speech from active-duty soldiers,” Leon wrote.

“Nor can speech from retired servicemembers ‘undermine the effectiveness of response to command’ as directly as speech from active-duty soldiers.”

Leon also acknowledged that Kelly’s role as a lawmaker in Congress compounded the harms from any attempts to curtail his free-speech rights.

“If legislators do not feel free to express their views and the views of their constituents without fear of reprisal by the Executive, our representative system of Government cannot function!” he wrote, in one of his many exclamatory statements.

The judge was also harshly critical of the Trump administration’s arguments that Kelly’s rank and retirement benefits were solely a military matter, not a judicial one.

Leon described Hegseth’s letter of censure as making Kelly’s punishment a “fait accompli” – a foregone conclusion – given that such a document cannot be appealed and could itself serve as the basis for a demotion.

“Here, the retaliation framework fits like a glove,” Leon said, appearing to validate the crux of Kelly’s lawsuit.

At another point, he rejected the government’s arguments by saying, “Put simply, Defendants’ response is anemic!”

The injunction he offered, though, is temporary and will last only until the lawsuit reaches a resolution.

Trump administration responds

In the wake of the injunction, Kelly took to social media to say the short-term victory was a win for all military veterans.

“Today a federal court made clear that Pete Hegseth violated the Constitution when he tried to punish me for something I said,” Kelly said in a video statement.

“But this case was never just about me. This administration was sending a message to millions of retired veterans that they, too, can be censured or demoted just for speaking out.”

He added that the US faces a “critical moment” in its history, warning of the erosion of fundamental rights.

Kelly then proceeded to accuse the Trump administration of “cracking down on our rights and trying to make examples of anybody they can”. He also acknowledged that the legal showdown had only just begun.

“I appreciate the judge’s careful consideration of this case,” Kelly said. “But I also know that this might not be over yet, because this president and this administration do not know how to admit when they’re wrong.”

Within a couple of hours of Kelly’s post, Hegseth himself shared a message on social media, confirming that the Trump administration would forge ahead with contesting Thursday’s decision.

“This will be immediately appealed,” Hegseth said of the injunction. “Sedition is sedition, ‘Captain.’”

Kelly is considered a Democratic contender for the presidency in 2028.

EMMERDALE actress Lisa Riley said Robin Windsor’s “glow had gone” after he was dropped from Strictly, an inquest heard.

The professional dancer, 44, was found dead in a hotel room in Shepherd’s Bush, West London, in February 2024.

An inquest heard Windsor left a suicide note saying the way he was treated by the BBC “destroyed me”.

The pro added: “It started me on the road I’m still on.

“All I wanted from life was to be happy.

“I loved my job more than anyone else.”

Riley was Windsor’s dance partner in the penultimate series he appeared on in 2012.

After being paired with Windsor, Riley said they were “joined at the hip”.

“To say we hit it off was an understatement,” the actress said in a written witness statement read to West London Coroner’s Court on Wednesday.

“I had only just lost my mum in the July. I, myself, was in a very difficult place.

“Robin was my rock.”

The Latin and ballroom dancer joined Strictly in 2010 and danced with actresses Patsy Kensit, Anita Dobson and Riley, and Dragon’s Den’s Deborah Meaden in four series until 2013.

He could not perform in the 2014 series because of a back injury and was dropped in 2015, but still appeared in the Christmas special that year, dancing alongside TV presenter Alison Hammond.

“It was from this moment, on to the time of his death, he kept slipping deeper and deeper into depression,” Riley said.

“His glow had gone.”

The actress recalled how she and Windsor had built up an “incredible trust” and remained friends.

“He literally told me everything,” she said.

“I trusted him and he trusted me.

“There were many, many happy times to begin with and together we did have so much fun.”

Riley said Windsor told her of times of “never feeling good enough” and “imposter syndrome”.

“Robin was and always has been very influenced by other men,” she added.

“It became a standing joke that he fell in love after three days.”

Riley said Windsor was insecure about his body and took steroids which, combined with alcohol, would put him in a bad place, jurors heard.

The court was also told how he was “drowning in debts” and “frantically” spent on designer items he could not afford.

Riley added: “Money problems also played a part of his darker days.”

She said her last contact with Windsor was around Christmas 2023, when they texted after Riley saw him share a “really dark” post on Facebook.

Riley continued: “I of course text him straight away and he replied saying he was ‘fine, just usual ups and downs of life’.”

The inquest also heard Robin was “obsessed” with watching Strictly prior to his death.

His panto co-star Terry Gleed said Robin spent his free time during rehearsals watching the show.

The star added: “I could feel that he really wanted to be there more than where we were. He missed it dearly.”

The court heard Robin had suffered a back injury in late 2013 which resulted in him needing surgery to remove a disc.

He missed the 2014 series while he recovered.

Next year telly bosses chose not to renew his contract.

Pal Kristina Rihanoff, 48, told the hearing yesterday she was “extremely upset” after learning Robin had not been asked back for the 13th series.

She added “the psychological impact was very severe” because he “couldn’t do what he loved” due to his back pain.

Kristina described it as “heartbreaking” to see him “deeply sad, subdued and burdened”.

The inquest continues.

If you are affected by any of the issues raised in this article, please call the Samaritans for free on 116123.

Two lawsuits accusing the world’s largest social media companies of harming children begin this week, marking the first legal efforts to hold companies like Meta responsible for the effects their products have on young users.

Opening arguments began today in a case brought by New Mexico’s attorney general’s office, which alleges that Meta failed to protect children from sexually explicit material. A separate case in Los Angeles, which accuses Meta and the Google-owned YouTube of deliberately designing their platforms to be addictive for children, is set to begin later this week.

TikTok and Snap were also named in the original California lawsuit but later settled under undisclosed terms.

The New Mexico and California lawsuits are the first of a wave of 40 lawsuits filed by state attorneys general around the US against Meta, specifically, that allege that the social media giant is harming the mental health of young Americans.

New Mexico case

In the opening argument in the New Mexico case, which was first filed in 2023, prosecutors told jurors on Monday that Meta – Facebook and Instagram’s parent company – had failed to disclose its platforms’ harmful effects on kids.

“The theme throughout this trial is going to be that Meta put profits over safety,” said lawyer Donald Migliori, who is representing the state of New Mexico against Meta.

“Meta clearly knew that youth safety was not its corporate priority… that youth safety was less important than growth and engagement.”

Prosecutors say they will provide evidence and testimony that Meta’s algorithms and account features not only enticed young people and made them addicted to social media, but also fostered a “breeding ground” for predators who target children for sexual exploitation.

Late last month, in the process of discovery, the New Mexico attorney general’s office said the company did not put in safeguards to protect children from accessing sexualised chatbots on Facebook and Instagram.

In emails obtained by the court, some of Meta’s safety staff had expressed objections that the company was building chatbots geared for companionship, including sexual and romantic interactions with users, according to the Reuters news agency.

The artificial intelligence chatbots were released in early 2024. The documents cited in the state’s filing do not include messages or memos authored by Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg. In October 2025, Meta added parental controls to the chatbots.

California case

The California case is more wide-reaching and alleges that Meta and YouTube, which is a unit of Alphabet-owned Google, used deliberate design choices that sought to make their platforms more addictive to children to boost profits.

The case centres around a 19-year-old identified only by the initials KGM. The case could determine how thousands of other, similar lawsuits against social media companies will play out.

KGM claims that her use of social media from an early age made her addicted to the technology and exacerbated her depression and suicidal thoughts.

“Borrowing heavily from the behavioral and neurobiological techniques used by slot machines and exploited by the cigarette industry, Defendants deliberately embedded in their products an array of design features aimed at maximizing youth engagement to drive advertising revenue,” the lawsuit says.

Executives, including Zuckerberg, are expected to testify at the trial, which will last six to eight weeks. It is unclear if they will attend the New Mexico case.

The tech companies dispute the claims that their products deliberately harm children, citing a bevvy of safeguards they have added over the years and arguing that they are not liable for content posted on their sites by third parties.

“Recently, a number of lawsuits have attempted to place the blame for teen mental health struggles squarely on social media companies,” Meta said in a recent blog post. “But this oversimplifies a serious issue. Clinicians and researchers find that mental health is a deeply complex and multifaceted issue, and trends regarding teens’ well-being aren’t clear-cut or universal.

Narrowing the challenges faced by teens to a single factor ignores the scientific research and the many stressors impacting young people today, like academic pressure, school safety, socio-economic challenges and substance abuse.”

A Meta spokesperson said in a recent statement that the company strongly disagrees with the allegations outlined in the lawsuit and that it is “confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people”.

Jose Castaneda, a Google spokesperson, said the allegations against YouTube are “simply not true”.

“Providing young people with a safer, healthier experience has always been core to our work,” he said in a statement.

High stakes

The outcome of the cases could shape the future of social media.

“In my mind, an existential question for social media services is whether they’re liable for harm suffered by users from using the services. If so, the damages could be more money than the defendants have, Eric Goldman, a professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law, told Al Jazeera.

“We’re talking about massive financial stakes, and we’re also talking about the ability of the plaintiffs to veto or potentially override editorial decisions by the services about what’s in the best interests of their audiences,” he said.

“It’s essentially taking away power from the services to decide and handing it to plaintiffs’ lawyers. So, not only could there be existential damages, but there could also be a massive loss of editorial control over their services. The stakes could not be higher for social media services or the internet.”

Goldman said this was because the same argument could be used to shape claims against video game makers and generative AI, which refers to AI that can create original content, including text and video.

“If these theories work against social media, they might also work against video games, against generative AI, and who knows what else. That’s why I said the stakes are so high for the internet,” he added.

There are already lawsuits that claim that interactions with OpenAI’s ChatGPT led to instances of suicide and murder-suicide.

On Wall Street, Meta stock is trending up by more than 3 percent in midday trading.

SIR Idris Elba is due to give evidence in the trial of a woman who allegedly stalked him and his wife.

The defendant is to face court next year after being arrested and charged.

The Sun told last year how actor Idris, 53, and his wife Sabrina, 36, had allegedly received unwanted emails and other communications.

The woman was also said to have turned up at private events in London, which the couple attended separately on different days.

A source said: “These events were seriously distressing for Idris and his family.

“He had no choice but to report it to the authorities.”

BECKS & BUCKS

How Nicola Peltz’s dad built £1.7bn empire… & the ‘huge test’ Brooklyn passed

SUGDEN EXIT

Emmerdale’s Isabel reveals she’s RELIEVED to be leaving soap after 20 years

The woman, in her 30s, was arrested in October and in November denied five harassment-related charges at Kingston crown court, South West London.

She has been released on bail.

Luther star Idris is expected to take the stand in the trial pencilled in for May 2027.

The Met Police said: “A woman has been charged following an investigation.

“The charges follow an arrest on Sunday, 26 October, 2025.”