Courts

Victims’ groups, however, have denounced the ruling as ‘selective’ justice that exonerates a former government head.

A Mexican judge has closed the case against Francisco Garduno, former head of the country’s immigration agency, for crimes related to the 2023 fire at a Ciudad Juarez detention centre that killed 40 migrants and injured 30 others.

The incident was the deadliest event ever to occur at a Mexican immigration centre, and critics said it exposed the shortcomings and irregularities in the country’s detention system.

Garduno faced trial for the crimes of abuse of public office and dereliction of duty after footage from the fire showed guards had failed to respond to cries for help.

On Tuesday, Judge Victor Manlio Hernandez Calderon ruled that Garduno had fulfilled the court-mandated measures required to address the damage. But victims rejected that decision and announced they would appeal.

“Yesterday, corruption and the impunity of politicians protected by power won again,” the Foundation for Justice, one of the NGOs representing some of the victims, wrote on social media on Wednesday.

The victims have also compared the judge’s decision to close the criminal case to a de facto exoneration for Garduno.

In their view, the ruling “confirms that justice in Mexico is selective” and denies the victims “full reparations” and concrete guarantees that such an event will not be repeated.

Miguel Zenteno, one of the foundation’s lawyers, noted that the ruling is not yet final because it will be appealed and because another injunction is pending against the court-mandated reparations, which critics say failed to meet the standards for serious events.

On March 27, 2023, some 70 men were crammed into a locked dormitory with no ventilation and barely any water at the Ciudad Juarez immigration detention centre, on the border with El Paso, Texas.

As night fell, a small group set fire to some mattresses in protest, and within seconds, smoke engulfed the entire area.

Security cameras recorded the guards leaving the area despite cries for help. They made no attempt to open the gates of the dormitory. Only the women, held in another cell, were released. Most of the victims were Central Americans and Venezuelans.

Garduno, a former prison guard and current official at the Ministry of Education, led the National Migration Institute (INM) starting in 2019 and continued in the role until 2025 despite the fire.

The judge had previously ordered Garduno to compensate the families, provide them with free specialised medical care, issue a public apology, provide human rights training to migration personnel and guarantee that the events would not be repeated.

Zenteno acknowledged that the measures were implemented only partially because Garduno did not pay the damages as stipulated by the legal process.

Instead, Zenteno pointed out that the funds came from the INM, and the payments did not fully compensate the families. Furthermore, he added, the victims were not even informed how to access free medical services, and the apology “was a mere formality, not substantive”.

In addition to Garduno, prosecutors accused another former director of the institute of the same crimes.

Six immigration agents – including a military officer and a private security guard – and the two migrants accused of starting the fire are charged with homicide and assault. Most of the officials remain free pending trial.

KATIE Price’s third and final day of evidence at Kieran Hayler’s alleged rape trial spiralled into fiery court outbursts and a stark warning from the judge.

The former glamour model lashed out at Hayler’s lawyer – accusing her of “slander” and ranting: “I won’t have anybody call me a liar”.

Despiter being slapped down about her outbursts, Katie continued to row with Arlette Piercy as her cross-examination became more heated.

In one tense exchange, she asked the defence lawyer: “Are you calling me a liar?”

Ms Piercy replied: “I am.”

Katie then responded: “I don’t need to be here. You can see in black and white something’s gone on.

‘RAPE’ CASE

Russell Brand told pal ‘I may have gone too far’ with woman he ‘raped in hotel’

KATIE FURY

Katie Price rants ‘I won’t be called a liar’ in fiery exchange at Hayler trial

“I won’t have anybody call me a liar.”

Katie also branded Hayler, who is accused of raping and sexually a 13-year-old girl, a “wrong’un” and said: “You shouldn’t turn this case against me”.

She continued: “The real reason why we’re here is what he’s done to a child, not me.”

Ms Piercy then said she “can’t continue like this” after Katie repeatedly spoke over her.

She said: “Because you know I’m right.

“I won’t have anyone tell me I’m a liar. I’m not a liar.”

After Ms Piercy then referenced “cocaine and booze benders”, the reality star snapped back: “That’s discrimination.

“Everyone knows I self-medicated on coke due to Kieran introducing it.

“You are wrong and trying to discriminate me. The press know it all because of my journey. I ended up in therapy and tried to kill myself twice.

“You’re not going to slander my name. I don’t care if you are a barrister, you are not going to slander my name like that.

“I don’t need to sit here like a therapy session.”

Judge Mark van der Zwart was forced to intervene and told Katie to “stop talking please”.

He urged: “Take a drink, take a breath, take a moment.”

As she continued to try to talk, the judge continued: “Ms Price, let’s leave it there please.”

It came after she was given a prior warning by the judge to keep her views to herself following another rant yesterday.

Katie had claimed there were “other kids that haven’t come forward” during yet another tense exchange with Ms Piercy.

But the judge said: “When you’re being asked questions today please would you not mention any beliefs you may have whether Kieran Hayler has behaved inappropriately with anyone else apart from (the complainant).”

When she began repeating other allegations, she was slapped down by the judge.

He said: “I’m going to stop you there, Ms Price.

“Ms Price, golden rule: when I talk, nobody else does.”

She replied: “OK, sorry.”

Hayler has denied the allegations, which allegedly took place in West Sussex while he was married to Katie.

The complainant is not a member of his or Katie’s extended family.

Katie, 48, yesterday told jurors she did not have “any venom” against her ex-husband and said their split was “amicable”.

She also said she had not read any media reports of his trial because she had been “handcuffed to Suella Braverman all week” for a Channel 4 show.

Jurors were told how she had messaged the girl and vowed to make her a “little star” while quizzing her about whether she had kissed Hayler.

The exchange happened in May 2017 – eight months after the last alleged attack by Hayler, it was said.

Katie wrote: “I WON’T say anything and I PROMISE I’ll protect you!

“I’m only asking as this is a serious allegation to say.”

The girl, who was 14 at the time of the message exchange, replied: “It was just a flirt thing and he knew it was wrong. Nothing happened.”

Katie said: “Was it just a flirt and what did he do to realise it was wrong? Did he try (to) kiss you?

“I won’t bring (it) up anymore (I) just want (the) truth! I will make you a little star.

“Please help and tell me… as long as I know the truth, I won’t say. I PROMISE.”

Giving evidence behind a screen, Katie said it was “just a figure of speech” and claimed there was “no agenda or nothing behind it”.

She also denied being “angry and vengeful” towards Hayler and said she did not have a “vendetta” against him.

She ended her evidence yesterday by opening up about her mum Amy, 74, who has lung condition Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (IPF).

Katie said: “My mum’s dying at the moment and I haven’t been able to see her (because) I’ve got a cold… she’s got days.

“I did promise my mum I’d see her tomorrow.”

The girl, now 23, reported her allegations to the NSPCC in 2021.

The children’s charity then referred it to police and she was interviewed by cops in December 2021, with Hayler questioned the following month.

He denied any of the allegations took place and that anything sexual occurred.

Jurors heard he also told police in his first interview of the allegations in January 2022 that he believed he was being “set up”.

He said “100 per cent” he had not raped the girl, adding: “No never, the thought someone thinks I would do that is horrible, it makes me feel sick.”

Hayler also said to officers that he believed Katie had “planted a seed to (the complainant)”.

He added: “It’s like a smear campaign to ruin me.

“For this to come completely out of the blue I feel like somebody here is trying to set me up.

“Kate would put pressure on anybody. For her to not have anything on me I think kills her a little bit inside.”

In court, Katie described the allegations as “disgusting” but said she never went to the press or police about it and it was the complainant who reported it.

Hayler, who has worked as a stripper and actor, married Katie at a luxury resort in the Bahamas in 2013.

He was her third husband following her marriages to singer Peter Andre and cage fighter Alex Reid.

Katie and Hayler split in 2018 and formally divorced in 2021.

The trial continues.

For the past eight years, a small group of influential Ventura County Republicans has played a pivotal role in the selection of every new judge in the Superior and Municipal courts.

Working out of the public eye, this little-known group of judicial advisers has helped pick almost half the judges now serving in the Ventura County courts–its recommendations almost always accepted by Gov. George Deukmejian.

The most influential of the advisers–according to several sources–is Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury, who has helped secure judicial appointments for nine assistant prosecutors out of the 11 judgeships that have opened up since Deukmejian’s election in 1982.

In addition to Bradbury’s input, three of the county’s top Republican Party stalwarts serve as an informal judicial screening panel for Deukmejian.

They are Paul Leavens of Ventura, former county campaign chairman for Deukmejian; Gwen Tillemans of Oxnard, county Republican chairwoman; and Katherine H. Haley of Ojai, a major Republican fund-raiser.

The four have helped give a conservative and prosecution-oriented shape to the county’s bench for years to come, but whether they will enjoy a similar advisory role in the administration of Republican Gov.-elect Pete Wilson remains to be seen.

Leavens, Tillemans and Haley say that, in the informal structure of the county panel’s makeup, they see themselves as a separate panel of political advisers to the governor that usually checks with Bradbury before making judicial recommendations to Deukmejian.

Leavens is among those who candidly admit that Bradbury is probably the most influential of Deukmejian’s local advisers, an opinion shared by many in the legal community.

“The district attorney in Ventura County, as I recall, is a very influential person,” said Charles Vogel, president of the California Bar Assn. “I think that he’s not shy about expressing his views and I think that he will endeavor to influence the composition of the court, since it’s important to him.”

“It is not sufficient for Kay Haley to say, ‘Gee, I’d like you to make Chuck Campbell a judge now,’ ” said Wendy Lascher, president of the Ventura County Bar Assn., referring to Municipal Judge Charles W. Campbell Jr.

“That’s how the governor gets the ideas for choosing who to nominate, and if it comes down to one or the other it makes a difference,” Lascher added. “I suspect Mike Bradbury has had more influence than the rest of those people put together.”

And Leavens conceded:

“I would never send a recommendation to the governor without checking with Mike. He’s probably the most influential one of all. He’s in and out of the courts. He knows who they are.”

Bradbury downplays his role in picking the county’s judges, insisting that the governor’s office consults the local district attorney on judicial openings in every county in California.

That statement is supported by Terry Flanigan, the governor’s appointment secretary, but disputed by a spokeswoman for Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner in Los Angeles, a Democrat, who said Deukmejian never consults Reiner or any other Democratic head prosecutors around the state.

“I’m treated no differently than any other district attorney in the state . . . the governor’s office seeks our input and we provide it if we have the pertinent information,” Bradbury said. “The governor is clearly his own person when it comes to judge appointments and he does not simply rubber-stamp the recommendations of others.”

Nonetheless, Bradbury said that all 11 judges appointed by Deukmejian in the last eight years were recommended by him during the initial review process, including the nine former prosecutors from Bradbury’s office.

All the judges are white, nine of the 11 are Republicans and all but one are men.

Deukmejian appointed five out of the 15 sitting Superior Court judges, including Robert C. Bradley in 1984 and Barbara A. Lane, Kenneth R. Yegan, Frederick A. Jones and Edwin M. Osborne in 1986. All were elevated from Municipal Court positions. Osborne, a Democrat, is now presiding Superior Court judge.

Deukmejian also installed half of the 12 Ventura County Municipal Court judges, including Democrat Herbert Curtis III in 1984, John R. Smiley in 1986, Barry B. Klopfer in 1987, Charles W. Campbell Jr. and Ken W. Riley in 1988 and Thomas J. Hutchins in 1989.

Lane and Smiley, the only non-prosecutors, were appointed from private practice.

Bradbury’s influence in the judicial selection process, especially the elevation of Municipal Court judges to the Superior Court, brought an expression of concern from one expert on legal ethics, Dean Gerald F. Uelmen of the Santa Clara University School of Law.

“I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s a conflict that should preclude him from serving on the committee, but I think it’s a legitimate concern,” Uelmen said. “The danger would be that a judge would be more reluctant to rule against the D.A. on an issue that comes before him, for fear that it would jeopardize his prospects for advancement.”

Bradbury retorted:

“Gerry’s comment is the typical BS that he throws out on this and every other issue where he takes a very pro-defense point of view. I’ve never had any judge try and curry favor with me for any reason.”

Bradbury said he has “a fairly combative relationship” with Ventura County’s judges who dislike the fact that his policy against plea bargaining forces 12% to 15% of cases to trial, compared with 5% to 7% in most other counties.

Bradbury vehemently insisted he is “not on any committee” and added that “my views do not carry the kind of weight people attribute to me.” He said that Deukmejian’s office also consults with Sheriff John V. Gillespie on some appointments. Gillespie was out of town and unavailable for comment.

Each of Deukmejian’s judicial appointees in Ventura County began the selection process by calling or being recommended by someone on the informal three-member review panel, Leavens said.

Panel members never meet to discuss their work, but they often call each other and Bradbury to confer on nominees, said Leavens, whose Ventura-based Leavens Ranches company owns more than 1,000 acres of citrus and avocado orchards in Ventura and Monterey counties.

Each sends a letter of recommendation to Deukmejian’s office only “after conversing with people that know these people and learning who is well-respected, who has a good reputation and who would not embarrass the governor,” Leavens said.

Haley, a third-generation Ventura County resident described by some as “Mrs. Republican” in Ventura County, said she agrees with Leavens’ description of their work.

“The gist of it is that when there were people who had contacted us that were interested in serving as a judge . . . we investigated whether they were qualified people who could do the job. We’d write a letter and send it to the governor,” Haley said. “He wouldn’t always take our suggestion.”

Bradbury said that party loyalties play no role in his recommendations to Deukmejian. As for the fact that nearly all of Ventura County’s judges are Republican, he said:

“I have a hunch it’s because people that go into law enforcement organizations, for example, prosecutors, tend to be Republican. But we’ve got our share of Democrats in the office.”

Although the three review panel members do not automatically reject Democrats, Leavens and Tillemans said they screen the legal records, family background and political views of potential nominees to make sure that they will hew to Republican philosophies.

“Through the years, we’ve had so many judges that were very lenient in so many ways . . . so we look for the good Republican principles,” Tillemans said. Asked to outline the principles that are reflected in nominees’ legal briefs and judicial rulings, she said, “It’s more government by the people than government for the people.”

However, the three said that they do not delve into nominees’ personal lives.

“The kind of people we were talking to were all law-abiding citizens that were well-known in the legal community. Besides, isn’t that against the law anyway?” Haley said. “I never had anybody talk to us that had murdered anybody or threw his wife downstairs.”

And Leavens said they do not concern themselves with the nominees’ drinking habits or marital fidelity. “I think those things you wouldn’t have to ask about. You’d hear about them from other sources. Anybody that wants to go up is essentially pretty clean.”

The process of settling on a recommendation can take four to six months, said Tillemans, who when not working for her party promotes housing developments for the Dolphin Group, a Los Angeles-based lobbying and public relations firm with strong Republican political connections.

“We go over their resumes and we recommend the ones who we think are suitable and then the governor’s appointment secretary looks over them and it goes to Deukmejian,” she said.

But before Deukmejian makes any appointment, each nominee is reviewed by the state Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission, a panel of 20 lawyers and six lay people, which does extensive background checks.

The so-called Jenny Commission also reviews a seven-page questionnaire in which each nominee lists experience on the bench and at the bar, outlines political affiliations and personal history, and answers the question, “Why do you want to be a judge?”

Once that process ends, the commission rates each nominee as extremely well qualified, well qualified, qualified or “not ready for appointment at this time,” Flanigan said.

After reviewing the commission’s recommendations and letters on the nominees from local bar associations, the governor picks the nominee he feels is best suited for the slot, Flanigan said.

But this process could change in January–after what is sure to be a flurry of appointments by the outgoing Deukmejian–when Sen. Pete Wilson becomes governor, legal experts and Wilson associates agree.

Wilson has relied on an eight-member merit selection committee to make initial recommendations for federal judge appointments in the Central District of California. The panel included U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Cynthia Holcomb Hall, U.S. District Judge William D. Keller and California Supreme Court Justice Malcolm M. Lucas, who also served while a federal district judge.

Although critics on the federal bench challenged the propriety of letting federal judges help name their colleagues when the Wilson committee’s makeup was first revealed in 1986, the panel has continued to advise Wilson on federal judicial nominees. Federal judges are appointed by the President upon the recommendation of legislators.

And if Wilson’s taste in federal judges is any guide, his appointments to the state bench will differ to some degree from Deukmejian’s, said Vogel, the state bar association chief.

“It appears he is impressed with people who have good academic records,” Vogel said of Wilson. “If you look at his federal appointments, many of them were high achievers in college or law school.”

Vogel continued, “Deukmejian was the attorney general, he did work with prosecutors, he did work with government lawyers. He was pretty proud of them and felt somewhat in line with them and felt their expertise in government would fit them well in the bench.”

However, Wilson’s method of weeding out unwanted nominees probably will change for state appointees because state law requires nominees to be reviewed by the Jenny Commission, said John G. Davies, a San Diego lawyer who served as Wilson’s judicial selection adviser.

“Deukmejian and all the other governors in my lifetime have had local screening committees. I have no idea what Pete’s intentions are on that,” Davies said.

“We have over 4,000 judicial applications on file for Deukmejian,” Flanigan said. He predicted the lame-duck governor will fill many of the judicial vacancies before leaving office. “I think he’ll look at it as his greatest legacy.”

The retirement last week of Presiding Municipal Judge Lee E. Cooper Jr. virtually guarantees that Deukmejian’s local advisers will have further impact on the bench before Wilson takes office.

The Jenny Commission already has pumped nominees through the pipeline and readied them for the governor’s final approval, and the local advisers have made their recommendations for new openings, Bradbury said.

“It’s my sense that Deukmejian will fill every opening that he has available before he leaves office because the judiciary was a very important issue for him,” Bradbury said.

Once Wilson takes office, he will find the California justice system far larger and more of a challenge–with 1,500 judgeships–than the federal system he is accustomed to, said Flanigan, the governor’s appointment secretary.

Flanigan, who has been asked to keep his job through the first year of Wilson’s term, said that relying on a fixed group of people for input “would not be reasonable,” even though “there are lawyers and non-lawyers who we may talk to in the Deukmejian or future Wilson administration.” The ideal situation, he said, “is to talk to as broad a group as possible.”

Flanigan said the work of local advisers such as Bradbury, Leavens, Tillemans and Haley is vital to selecting the nominees that his office sends to the Jenny Commission–that is, the nominees who have a shot at being appointed by the governor.

“Wilson will follow the same road as Deukmejian in appointing conservative judges,” Tillemans predicted, “and we’re on that governor’s council now.”

Leavens’ wife, Carolyn Leavens, who was chairwoman of Wilson’s campaign in Ventura County, said she made a recommendation on one of Deukmejian’s judicial appointees–a duty she would gladly repeat for Wilson.

Bradbury, who actively campaigned for Wilson this year, said he is uncertain what his role will be in helping the new governor select future Ventura County judges.

But he added, “I would hope that Sen. Wilson would continue to seek the input of local public officials.”

The Trump administration argues that DOGE is exempt from freedom of information requirements.

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in a watchdog’s lawsuit seeking public records about trillionaire Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

The high court is intervening on Tuesday for a second time in Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW) in Washington’s case, which seeks access to DOGE records from its operations in the early days of US President Donald Trump’s second term. The Trump administration asked the court to hear the case.

Last year, the high court reined in a district court’s order for the government to produce DOGE-related records to CREW. The high court’s conservative majority concluded in June 2025 that US District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled too broadly in ordering documents to be turned over to the group.

CREW claims DOGE is a federal agency and therefore is subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The Trump administration argues that DOGE is exempt from FOIA’s requirements as a presidential advisory body.

Cooper ruled in CREW’s favour and ordered expedited processing of the group’s records request. An appeals court panel also sided with CREW.

The Trump administration claims the panel ignored the Supreme Court’s direction to consider separation-of-powers concerns and intruded on the “autonomy and confidentiality” of presidential advisers.

“Subjecting advisory bodies to intrusive discovery triggers the very concerns that Congress sought to avoid by excluding presidential advisory bodies from FOIA’s reach,” US Department of Justice lawyers wrote.

The administration also says the appeals court impermissibly authorised the plaintiffs to take a sworn deposition of DOGE acting administrator Amy Gleason.

CREW says the appeals court fully complied with the Supreme Court’s previous order. The group also asserts that the public has a right to know how DOGE helped the administration carry out a sweeping overhaul of government operations in 2025.

“Undisputed facts in the public record — including the President’s statements — confirmed that (DOGE) was wielding enormous independent authority across the federal government,” CREW lawyers wrote.

In a statement Tuesday, CREW lawyer Nikhel Sus said the lower courts have uniformly ruled that it is entitled to records that could help the court determine whether DOGE wields the type of authority that would make it subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

“We will continue to pursue transparency for the American people, who deserve to know the details of the Trump Administration’s efforts to unilaterally remake the federal government,” Sus said in the statement.

DOGE said it had slashed tens of billions of dollars in expenditures, but its claims were difficult for outside financial experts to verify.

Federal auditors found that some of DOGE’s reported savings across contract, grant and ⁠lease terminations were incorrect, lacked supporting evidence or included terminations that were already under way when DOGE was established, according to ⁠a report by the Government Accountability Office.

For more than 40 percent of US presidents, the fraternity hall was an early stop on the road to the White House.

Fraternal organisations, more commonly known as fraternities or frats, have a long and storied history on college campuses in the United States.

One industry group, the North American Interfraternity Conference (NIC), represents 58 fraternities spread across 600 schools. It claims nearly 200,000 undergraduate students as active members and an alumni population of 4.2 million.

The draw for college-aged men is the promise of brotherhood, a bond that transcends keg parties and late-night revelry. Like sororities and other members-only student organisations, fraternities are often touted as pathways to personal, academic and professional success.

But critics argue that some fraternities have leveraged their exclusivity to encourage and normalise violence, dangling social acceptance as a reward for compliance.

“This isn’t [some sort of] a hobbyist club,” said anthropologist Aldo Cimino, a Kent State University professor who studies fraternity hazing. “It is the seriousness of the affiliation that has generated the intensity of these induction rituals.”

In recent weeks, one case has renewed debate over fraternity culture and whether the campus organisations use their exclusivity to shield bad behaviour.

In September, an anonymous woman known as Jane Doe filed a civil lawsuit against the Chi Phi fraternity at Cornell University and seven of its members, accusing them of gang raping her during a party on the night of October 19, 2024.

Doe’s sorority, Delta Delta Delta, and Cornell itself are among the co-defendants.

Her lawsuit raises questions about fraternity and sorority culture at US schools, collectively known as “Greek life” for the groups’ use of Greek lettering and symbols.

Upon her admission to Cornell, Doe argues she encountered a “glorified – yet materially false and misleading – facade” for Greek life.

“She arrived on a campus where the University actively promoted Greek membership as a ‘vital’ part of the campus community and endorsed these organizations as well-managed, worthy pathways to new friendships and improving one’s educational and professional opportunities,” the lawsuit said.

The complaint accuses the fraternities of instead perpetuating a pattern of sexual assault and abuse.

What are fraternities?

Now a multibillion-dollar industry, fraternities in the US trace their origins to men-only clubs established at some of the country’s oldest universities.

The tradition began at the College of William and Mary in 1776, when Phi Beta Kappa was founded as a secret society for debate and scholarly exchange.

Its adoption of the Greek alphabet, oath of secrecy, and arcane membership rites helped establish a blueprint for future fraternities and sororities. Often with houses of their own, fraternities eventually grew into informal extensions of the campus residential system.

Historian Nicholas Syrett wrote about the origins of such groups in his book The Company He Keeps: A History of White College Fraternities.

In an interview with Al Jazeera, he explained that fraternities have long embraced so-called masculine ideals. But those ideals have changed from generation to generation.

In the past, fraternities sought to position themselves in “opposition to boyhood” by embracing “independence, strength of character, handsomeness and loyalty”, Syrett explained.

But their modern iteration has shifted to include a greater emphasis on “athleticism, sexual success with women, and recklessness” as well as alpha-male posturing.

Syrett argues that the fraternity system’s cult of toughness reflects a wider matrix of gendered expectations and social hierarchies.

Early fraternity men, Syrett says, prized intellect and academic distinction, provided neither betrayed too much effort. But “this has largely taken a backseat in contemporary fraternities”, he explained.

“When [men] are initiated, they are taught that loyalty to the brotherhood is of the utmost importance,” Syrett said of fraternities today. “This leads to the keeping of all kinds of secrets, including things that are against the rules and/or the law.”

A mark of elite status

In the two and a half centuries since the first fraternities were formed, Greek life has expanded to include different races and identities outside of white men.

Some Greek groups have even eschewed the traditional gender divide altogether to better embrace transgender and non-binary members.

But fraternities and sororities overall tend to act as “microcosms of the larger society”, according to Elizabeth Allan, a professor at the University of Maine and director of its Hazing Prevention Research Lab, “with race, pretty privilege and economic segregation helping shape the system”.

“The [social] stratification that we see in the larger society is going to be reflected, in large part, in many of these organisations, unless they’re actively working to disrupt it,” she added.

Between membership dues and rent at fraternity chapter houses, Greek organisations can price out all but the more affluent students, according to Allan.

“Pretty privilege” – the social bias in favour of those deemed conventionally attractive – can add to the pressure, with sorority applicants in particular shelling out hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars for cosmetic treatments and outfits.

Experts say the sense of exclusivity that many fraternities and sororities cultivate is a powerful draw for incoming students, who see membership as a path to upward social mobility.

That perception is reinforced by the groups’ internal dynamics. Many sororities and fraternities encourage networking among members.

A 2021 Gallup survey commissioned by the NIC and the National Panhellenic Conference found that 42 percent of fraternity or sorority alumni said a fellow member had helped them find an internship or job.

Meanwhile, 51 percent of Greek members reported having a job waiting at graduation or found employment within two months. The rate was much lower among those who were not members of such fraternities or sororities, at 36 percent.

How hazing shapes fraternities

Critics often point to hazing rituals in particular as shaping a culture of violence at some fraternities and sororities.

Hazing is a process through which prospective Greek life members undergo humiliating and sometimes perilous tasks to secure admission.

The phenomenon is prohibited by law in most US states, though the definitions, penalties and scope of such laws vary. The consequences, however, can be deadly.

One of the earliest recorded deaths associated with fraternity hazing took place at Cornell in 1873.

At the time, a group of “pledges” – would-be fraternity members – were blindfolded and led far from campus at night, with instructions to make their way back on their own.

In the dark, one of the pledges, Mortimer M Leggett, and two fraternity members stumbled over a cliff and plunged into the gorge of Six Mile Creek. The two fraternity members survived. Leggett, however, did not.

Secret initiation rituals can forge an “informal psychological social contract in which members feel obligated to protect the organisation”, according to Pietro Sasso, who studies college student experience at Old Dominion University.

Some members may feel the need to rally around the fraternity even when “doing so conflicts with their personal values or responsibilities to others”, Sasso added.

“My research on fraternity cultures suggests that organisational socialisation can normalise behaviours that individuals might otherwise question, making the environment itself an important part of prevention,” he explained.

Inside Doe’s lawsuit against Chi Phi

Doe’s case cites some of the social pressures and incentives that lead young men and women to Greek life on campus.

“She was drawn to the sorority and its promises of sisterhood and lifelong friendships, the status it conferred on its members, and the community it provided on campus when she was over 1,000 miles away from home,” the lawsuit said of Doe.

But Doe said she joined Cornell’s Greek community without being fully aware of the pattern of sexual assault associated with the local fraternities.

During Doe’s first semester, in 2022, there were at least five reported cases of victims at Cornell being drugged, and two alleged cases of sexual assault. All of those cases, according to her lawsuit, took place at fraternities.

Two years later, on the night of the alleged gang rape, Doe claims she was pressured by fraternity members to take drugs like ketamine, marijuana and alcohol. After agreeing to a threesome, she said she found herself in a “room full of predatory, fraternity men” who raped her while she was incapacitated.

A photo of a group chat included in her lawsuit shows one Chi Phi member informing his fellow fraternity brothers that there was “free pussy” in an upstairs alumni room. A member of the chat replies, “I f***ing love chi phi.” Another chimes in, “Like you can walk in and whip it out.”

Several of the men have denied any wrongdoing.

But the case has sparked questions about whether the culture of Greek life contributes to a high rate of sexual assault in fraternities and sororities.

One 2021 survey published by the American Psychological Association tracked male students from high school through their second year of college. It found that fraternity members were 62 percent more likely to report sexual aggression during their first two years of college.

Separately, a 2009 study published in the journal Violence Against Women estimated that 29 percent of sorority members reported suffering sexual assault during college, roughly four times the rate of non-members.

Reforming Greek life

After the alleged gang rape in 2024, Cornell’s Chi Phi chapter was closed, and the fraternity remains barred from campus. Two male defendants in Doe’s lawsuit were expelled, while another two were suspended.

But some student activists say too little is being done to reform Greek life in the wake of Doe’s case. They want stronger measures to enforce accountability within private, members-only groups where secrecy often reigns.

CJ Barles, a junior at the University of California, Davis, is one of the students across the US organising protests in support of Doe. She told Al Jazeera she understands the appeal of the fraternity and sorority systems.

“Affiliated students say it looks good on their resume,” Barles explained. “They see it as a built-in cult, a seat at the table and a crew to call their own.”

But Barles said she has heard troubling reports. Some fraternities, she explained, hold parties “requiring every man” to arrive with several women in tow. That requirement says “a lot about the culture some of these spaces cultivate”, she added.

At a rally last week, Barles and other protesters called on the University of California system to implement new measures to hold fraternities accountable for sexual assault, including enshrining students’ right to withdraw consent during sexual encounters.

But Barles said she left feeling dumbstruck by the accounts of sexual violence shared by women on campus, many of whom spoke from personal experience.

“It’s unbelievably upsetting, the amount of stories I heard,” said Barles. The litany of grievances has fanned her scepticism of the Greek system: “I wouldn’t step within a mile of most of them.”

Main opposition Congress party announces rally to the top court to demand removal of the chief election commissioner.

A federal judge ruled against the Justice Department’s use of voter data to cross-reference an immigration database.

A United States judge has ruled that the Justice Department unlawfully sought state voter rolls to cross-check against a federal immigration database and identify voters it considered ineligible.

US District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan’s decision on Friday marks another setback for President Donald Trump’s efforts to expand federal oversight of elections ahead of the midterms, as Republicans seek to retain control of Congress.

In a 78-page ruling siding with watchdog group Common Cause, Sooknanan said the administration had understated the risk of wrongly removing eligible citizens from voter rolls because of inaccuracies in the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database.

“The challenged policy represents the federal government’s attempt to decide who gets to vote,” Sooknanan wrote, adding that Congress had left that authority to the states.

The Justice Department said it was reviewing the ruling.

Ming Cheung, a senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Voting Rights Project, said the ruling made clear that the administration could not use the federal government to disrupt elections or put voters’ rights at risk.

“The Trump administration has repeatedly taken extreme measures to interfere with how elections are run, undermine confidence in the results, and create confusion,” Cheung said in a statement.

Last year, Trump directed the department to crack down on voting by ineligible people, despite research showing voter fraud is rare. The department subsequently demanded unredacted voter rolls from nearly all 50 states, including sensitive personal information.

Eighteen states, mostly Republican-led, complied. The department cross-checked their data against SAVE and flagged people identified as noncitizens for potential removal from voter rolls.

Sooknanan said the database could contain outdated citizenship records, potentially misidentifying naturalised US citizens.

The department has also sued 30 states and Washington, DC, over their refusal to provide voter data. Twenty-six cases have been dismissed.

In a separate case in June, Sooknanan blocked the expanded use of the SAVE database for voter roll checks, an order the US Supreme Court temporarily paused last month.

Federal law bars systematic voter roll purges in the 90 days before a federal election, which could limit the ruling’s practical effect before the November 3 vote.

The United States has imposed a new set of sanctions against the International Criminal Court (ICC), prompting several countries – including US allies – to condemn the move and reiterate their support for the world’s war crimes tribunal.

On Friday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that Washington would be banning transactions with the “rogue court, cutting off their resources and crippling its ability to operate”, adding that President Donald Trump would “never allow” the Hague to prosecute Americans.

The ICC was created in 2002 to prosecute individuals accused of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity when national authorities are unable or unwilling to do so.

The US Treasury Department announced the penalties with a six-month initial grace period and other exemptions that would allow some transactions for telecommunications, software, pension payments and transactions related to detainees.

Rubio said the sanctions would give the court and its member states an opportunity to address US concerns and would be adjusted if they did not meet those demands.

The Trump administration says the court has exceeded its authority by pursuing officials from countries that are not ICC members, such as Israel. The United States and Israel have never joined the court.

In response to the sanctions, the ICC said that the move was an “assault on the rule of law and on the very foundations of the international legal order”. It called on its 125 member states to defend the institution.

“The Court cannot stand alone. Its fate now rests also in the hands of the states that created it,” the ICC said in a statement. “This is not just about defending a single institution, but about safeguarding the international order grounded upon the rule of law. History will judge this moment.”

The Trump administration sanctioned more than a dozen judges and prosecutors before issuing sanctions on the court itself Friday.

Allies ‘regret and disagree’ with US move

Soon after the US announcement, top United Nations officials condemned the move.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres was “deeply alarmed” by the expected impact of the sanctions on the court as a whole, particularly its ability to carry out its mandate, a statement from his spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said.

“Today’s decision marks a serious blow to our collective pursuit of international criminal justice, of which the ICC is a key pillar,” the statement added.

UN Human Rights chief Volker Turk called for immediate measures to protect the ICC. “These sanctions – the latest in a series of retaliatory steps against the ICC and its personnel for the work they do every day to advance accountability for the very worst violations of human rights – are unacceptable,” he said.

ICC member states that are US allies also expressed dismay at the decision.

Dutch Foreign Minister Tom Berendsen, whose country hosts the ICC, said the US’s decision was “deeply regrettable”.

“We will stand firm in defence of the court. At the same time, it’s important to note that the sanctions will not take effect immediately and that service providers can continue to work for the ICC. The six-month period before the sanctions take effect creates scope for dialogue,” he said.

In a joint statement, the foreign ministers of Britain, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada and Japan said they “regret and strongly disagree” with the sanctions.

“If put into effect, these sanctions will have a significant impact on the Court’s work, its dedicated staff and their families … We remain both united in our support for the ICC and committed to engaging in constructive and inclusive dialogue with non-States Parties,” they said.

Belgian Foreign Minister Maxime Prevot also said Brussels would discuss support for the ICC with European Union foreign affairs colleagues on Monday and at the upcoming European Council.

“We will press for concrete protection. The court’s independence cannot depend on whom it investigates. Europe must act. Belgium is calling for the activation of the EU Blocking Statute to protect the court,” Prevot said.

US aims to ‘ultimately destroy’ ICC

Similarly, organisations and rights groups sounded the alarm over the implications of the US decision.

Philippe Bolopion, executive director of US-based Human Rights Watch, said the Trump administration had made clear its aim to “destroy” the ICC and “shield US and Israeli officials from facing charges before the court”.

“The ICC was created to ensure that no one, no matter how powerful, is above the law. Governments that value human rights and accountability should condemn this outrageous move and take swift action to protect the ICC, its staff, and all those who cooperate with it, starting with the European Union using its laws to mitigate the sanctions’ impact in the region,” he said.

The Executive Director of the Open Society Justice Initiative, James Goldston, said the sanctions were a “calculated attack on the rule of law and the principles of judicial independence and equality that underpin it.”

“This is the latest move in a campaign of coercion intended to destroy the system of international justice,” he said.

Amnesty International called on countries to “resist”. Trump’s “sanctions are designed to isolate and ultimately destroy the International Criminal Court”, Erika Guevara Rosas, Amnesty’s senior director for research, policy, advocacy and campaigns, said in a statement. “This existential attack must fail. States must take concrete action to resist the imposition of these measures.”

Amid widespread criticism, Israel commended the US move.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hailed the sanctions and praised Trump and Rubio for taking this “critical decision”.

“The ICC is not a court. It is a political body that poses a mortal threat to law-abiding democracies worldwide and to the very idea of national sovereignty,” Netanyahu wrote on X.

In 2024 the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu on war crimes and crimes against humanity charges for the war on Gaza.

Award-winning filmmaker, who was detained last month, released on bond with next hearing set for October 27, campaign says.

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency in the United States has released Kashmiri filmmaker Arfat Sheikh from custody after he was detained on September 24.

The award-winning filmmaker was released on Thursday, two days after he was granted bond, according to a statement by a campaign of his friends and relatives to free him.

However, ICE’s deportation case against Sheikh continues with the next hearing set for October 27, the campaign said.

Sheikh, whose work has explored conflict in his native India-administered Kashmir, was detained by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as he disembarked from a plane at Dulles International Airport outside Washington, DC, after arriving from California.

The 42-year-old, who lives in Alexandria, Virginia, entered the US on a student visa in 2019 to pursue graduate studies in film at Georgia State University and filed for asylum in 2020.

The campaign said he had a pending asylum application and was authorised to work and live in the US.

The DHS confirmed on Wednesday that Sheikh had been arrested on September 24 and said he “legally entered the US on a temporary basis and illegally overstayed his lawful admittance”.

A pending application does not confer legal status in the US, the DHS said, adding he ⁠will receive due process.

Sheikh’s first feature film, Saffron Kingdom, garnered multiple honours, notably best feature film at the Chicago Filmmakers Awards, Los Angeles Film and Documentary Awards, Melbourne Independent Film Festival, Wake Forest Film Festival and Anatolian International Film Awards.

In 2025, Sheikh was also recognised with the emerging filmmaker activist award at the Teaneck International Film Festival.

His detention came amid a surge in the number of ICE arrests across the US, which hit record levels over the summer. About 50,000 arrests were recorded in July and August.

President Donald Trump’s administration said in August that it was ‌working “to identify ⁠and revoke the non-immigrant visas of foreigners who have come to the US claiming to be short-term visitors, but then file for asylum to stay here permanently”.

Police say the incident is not connected to ongoing investigations at the RAF Fairford airbase.

Police in the United Kingdom say they have arrested and charged a member of the Royal Navy accused of working with an unnamed foreign power after an investigation by counterterrorism police.

Teddy Young, 24, was charged with two offences under the National Security Act for allegedly obtaining protected information and preparing to transfer it for the benefit of a foreign power.

In a statement, authorities alleged that between November 2024 and May 2025, Young “obtained, copied, recorded or retained protected information, intending the conduct to benefit a foreign power… contrary to section 1 of the National Security Act 2023″.

Young is due to appear at London’s Westminster Magistrates’ Court later on Thursday.

“These are very serious charges against a serving member of the armed forces,” Commander Helen Flanagan, Head of Counter Terrorism Policing London, said in a statement.

“We have worked extremely closely with relevant operational colleagues within the Ministry of Defence as our investigation has progressed to ensure appropriate measures could be taken to mitigate any potential risks linked to this matter,” she added.

UK media reported that the officer was arrested at his home in Bedfordshire on Tuesday before he was taken into custody in London.

The police clarified that the case is not related to the ongoing investigation into an incident at the RAF Fairford airbase.

KATIE Price told her ex-husband Kieran Hayler’s alleged child rape victim she would “make her a little star”, a court heard today.

The former glamour model, 48, made the comment in a message while quizzing the girl about whether she had kissed Hayler, jurors were told.

The message exchange happened in May 2017 – eight months after the last alleged attack by Hayler, it was said.

The former stripper is accused of three counts of rape and one count of sexual assault against the girl between June and October 2016 – when she was 13 and Hayler and Katie were married.

In the May 2017 exchange, mother-of-five Katie asked the girl if she and Hayler, 39, had kissed.

Katie wrote: “I WON’T say anything and I PROMISE I’ll protect you!

FIRST WORDS

Christa Pike has ‘no memory’ of botched execution as she speaks from hospital

GRIM LIE

Moment Dexter killer who knifed woman in ‘kill room’ blames ‘dog’ for bloody hands

“I’m only asking as this is a serious allegation to say.”

The girl, who was 14 at the time of the message exchange, replied: “It was just a flirt thing and he knew it was wrong. Nothing happened.”

Katie said: “Was it just a flirt and what did he do to realise it was wrong? Did he try (to) kiss you?

“I won’t bring (it) up anymore (I) just want (the) truth! I will make you a little star.

“Please help and tell me… as long as I know the truth, I won’t say. I PROMISE.”

The girl replied: “I never wanted to have this conversation with you and this was over eight months ago… maybe longer. I’m really sorry.”

Katie then queried if Hayler ever said he “liked or fancied you”, to which the girl responded: “Yes, but I took it as a joke.

“Please don’t get angry at him because of me.”

Asked by defence barrister Arlette Piercy what she took the “little star” message to mean, she said: “I think I just ignored it.”

Ms Piercy asked if she had said it before, to which she replied: “No.”

The girl, now 23, reported her allegations to the NSPCC children’s charity in 2021.

The charity then referred it to police and she was interviewed by cops in December 2021, with Hayler questioned the following month.

The alleged attacks are said to have happened at a West Sussex address.

She claims Hayler described sex as “special” to her before the first alleged rape, and says the third alleged attack happened in a bathroom.

She says that after the third alleged rape, Hayler sent her a text saying: “I love you. Good night”, to which she responded: “I love you too.”

Ms Piercy suggested the messages were never sent but the alleged victim claimed Hayler asked her to delete them.

Giving evidence from behind a screen, she said: “They’ve long gone, some years ago.

“I don’t have them anymore, it was ten years ago.”

She added: “Mr Hayler was asking me to delete my messages.”

The girl, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is not a member of Hayler nor Katie’s family.

Hayler, wearing a white shirt and blue suit jacket in court today split from Katie in 2018.

He denies all of the allegations.

The Lewes Crown Court trial continues.

United States President Donald Trump has approved the death by firing squad of Nidal Malik Hasan, a former army officer convicted of carrying out a 2009 mass shooting at Fort Hood, an army base in Texas.

The move, if it proceeds, will revive executions in the army, which has not carried one out since 1961.

Death sentences, as well as executions in the US military, are rare and require presidential approval.

Under the army’s code of military justice, premeditated murder does carry the death penalty, but the process is often strict and prolonged.

However, the Trump administration has shown more willingness to seek death penalties for serious crimes, including against civilians.

Here’s what we know about the case:

What is the presidential order?

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had initially recommended an execution order for Hasan, and Trump has now approved it, according to an X statement posted by Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell.

Parnell said the time and date of the execution will be set by Army Secretary Adam Telle, who is serving in an acting capacity.

“Judgement day for Hasan has finally come,” he wrote.

What happened at Fort Hood?

On November 5, 2009, the US-born army major, Hasan, a psychiatrist in the force, walked into an army processing centre in Fort Hood, shouted “Allahu Akbar” (God is great) and opened fire on fellow staff members waiting to get medical attention.

Thirteen people were killed, including a pregnant soldier, and 32 others were wounded during 10 minutes of shooting. Analysts have called it the worst shooting at a US military base targeting members of armed forces.

Hasan was shot several times after two officers engaged him and remains paralysed from the waist down.

What happened during the trial?

Hasan was immediately court-martialled, and military prosecutors, from the start, sought the death penalty against him.

However, the process would play out over the course of several years even after his conviction – largely because the US military is averse to capital punishment.

During the trial, Hasan represented himself and admitted to the attacks, saying he was trying to stop deployments to Afghanistan and the killing of his fellow Muslims. He was due to be deployed weeks later.

Investigations revealed Hasan had exchanged emails with Yemeni-American scholar Anwar al-Awlaki, accused of ties to al-Qaeda, before the shooting. He had also repeatedly voiced opposition to the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to colleagues and the treatment of Muslims in the army.

Hasan made little effort to defend himself, and his assigned lawyers claimed his testimony aided the opposing side.

He was charged and convicted on 13 counts of premeditated murder in 2013, and jurors recommended the maximum sentence of death. Controversially, Hasan was charged with “workplace violence” because the military justice code does not address the crime of “terrorism”.

The judgement was further delayed by appeals mandated by the military, not because Hasan sought them.

In 2020, the US Army Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the death penalty for Hasan, and in 2023, the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces did the same. In March 2025, the US Supreme Court denied a mandatory petition for a judicial review.

In September 2025, Hegseth announced he was seeking presidential approval for Hasan’s execution.

At the time, there was no report of Hegseth specifically seeking death by firing squad.

The president holds the ultimate authority to specify the designated method of execution.

Other forms of execution could have been lethal injection or hanging, which the US military has used in the past.

What next?

While Trump’s approval will begin a series of steps towards preparing for the execution, Hasan can still put the process on hold for years with an appeal in the civilian federal court system.

However, that might be unlikely as Hasan made no effort to defend himself during the trial.

He has been remanded to the US Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas, where three other men have also been on the military death row for years.

Among them is Hasan Akbar, convicted of two counts of murder after attacking fellow army members on a Kuwait base in 2003, during the invasion of Iraq.

Another is the convicted serial killer and rapist Ronald Gray, who was found guilty of four counts of murder and eight counts of rape in 2008. He was approved for execution in the same year under President George W Bush, but the process was put on hold by a judge.

Timothy Hennis, a former sergeant, was convicted in 2010 of a triple murder and is also on death row.

The last military execution took place in 1961, when former soldier John Bennett was hanged for the rape of an 11-year-old girl.

Student groups call for the abolition of Greek life and punitive action in wake of fraternity assault allegations.

Protesters in the United States have shattered a glass door at Cornell University’s main administrative headquarters and spray-painted messages on the building’s walls as backlash continues following allegations about a 2024 gang rape at a local fraternity.

In the early hours of Monday, the glass panes on an entrance door for the building, Day Hall, were smashed, leaving shards strewn across the floor.

Activists, outraged at the school’s handling of the case, also graffitied nearby walls with slogans like “At Cornell rapists are protected protesters are expelled” and “Smash the patriarchy”.

The predawn incident came ahead of a rally demanding “justice for survivors” by student groups on Monday.

Cornell spokesperson Kyle Kimball said Monday that the university was investigating the vandalism.

“We understand the frustration and strong emotions being expressed across our community,” Kimball said. “Those concerns deserve to be heard, but damaging property is not the answer.”

Cornell, a prominent Ivy League university in the state of New York, has been at the centre of a national firestorm over sexual violence on US campuses, after an anonymous student, Jane Doe, filed a civil lawsuit last month alleging a gang rape at the fraternity Chi Phi.

Her complaint accuses seven former students of perpetrating “heinous criminal sexual acts” against her during a fraternity party on the night of October 19, 2024, after she says she was pressured to drink and take the drug ketamine.

The fraternity, Cornell University and others are named as co-defendants in the suit. Lawyers for two of the former students have rejected claims that they participated in sexual assault.

The case has elicited outcry over how sexual assault is handled on campuses across the country.

At Monday’s demonstration, students demanded an overhaul of the university’s sexual assault complaint process, the termination of certain school officials and stricter disciplinary action against alleged abusers.

In a statement to the student news outlet The Cornell Daily Sun, student organisers wrote that they were calling for the “abolition” of the Interfraternity Council system on campus and the “expulsion/revocation of degrees for all Chi Phi members involved in the rape”.

They also demanded that Cornell’s Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards be replaced by a “democratic disciplinary system”. Monday’s protest, they added, was designed to draw attention to the systemic failures that allow sexual violence to occur.

“We wanted to ensure that Day Hall, the centre of Cornell’s administrative function, was not able to continue business as usual,” the students told the campus paper.

The alleged crime at the fraternity, they wrote, was part of a “rampant pattern of sexual assault perpetrated by members of Greek life at Cornell University and hundreds of other academic institutions throughout the country”.

Under pressure by New York Governor Kathy Hochul and Attorney General Letitia James, the university announced this week it would be appointing a law firm to conduct an independent internal review of how it initially handled the case.

A transcript, obtained by US media, shows that although no charges were filed, Doe told campus police at the time that she could “say with 100% confidence I was raped”.

Her lawsuit also alleges that Cornell “afforded” the accused fraternity members “the opportunity to mitigate their conduct by submitting essays” to the school. Two were later expelled, and another two were suspended.

Last month, a woman identified as Jane Doe filed a lawsuit against Cornell University, the fraternity Chi Phi and the seven fraternity members she accused of gang-raping her on the night of October 19, 2024.

Her allegations have triggered a nationwide reckoning in the United States over the prevalence of sexual assault on college campuses.

But the case has also reignited efforts to reform laws in the state of New York.

While the left-leaning state has long presented itself as a leader in women’s rights, advocates say sexual assault survivors still face pervasive legal barriers when they seek justice.

Erica Vladimer, a lawyer and founding director of Harassment-Free New York, a survivor-led nonprofit, told Al Jazeera that much of the legislation currently in the spotlight is the culmination of years, if not decades, of work.

“These are bills that we have been fighting for for years when sexual violence is not in the news,” Vladimer said.

She drew a line between the #MeToo movement, which began in 2017 as an online campaign to denounce sexual misconduct, and the current wave of outrage following Doe’s allegations.

“It speaks to the fact that the #MeToo movement is not dead. It is a movement, not a moment,” Vladimer said.

Already, leaders in Albany, the state capital, have signalled they would take action following the Cornell case.

On Wednesday, the New York Assembly announced it had formed a working group to examine the state’s sexual-assault laws and develop recommendations for the 2027 legislative session.

Still, advocates say more concrete measures are needed to address the crisis.

“I appreciate that this work is happening,” said Lindsey Boylan, a New York City Council candidate. “It doesn’t undo the fact that rape culture is pervasive in the United States and very much so alive and well in New York.”

Boylan was the first woman to publicly accuse former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo of sexual harassment in another high-profile misconduct case, back in 2020. She is among those calling for greater reform.

Here are some of the measures advocates are pushing state lawmakers to adopt or amend:

‘Voluntary intoxication’ statute

The Cornell University case has brought renewed attention to New York’s “voluntary intoxication” statute, a legal loophole that can make it harder to prosecute sexual assault when a person has willingly consumed alcohol or drugs.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul pledged on Friday to work with lawmakers to close the gap.

“It should not matter whether they chose to use drugs or alcohol. Voluntary intoxication is not a license for sexual assault or gang rape. Period,” Hochul said.

Under the current state law, a person who voluntarily drinks or takes drugs is not considered “mentally incapacitated” during an assault, even if they become too intoxicated to consent.

That can make it harder for prosecutors to bring a sex-crime charge. The law primarily recognises incapacitation in the context of sexual assault when a person was involuntarily intoxicated, unconscious or otherwise “physically helpless”.

That distinction has become central to the Cornell case. Doe has acknowledged that she consumed substances before the alleged rape, saying that she was pressured into drinking alcohol and taking the dissociative drug ketamine.

The Tompkins County district attorney initially declined to bring charges, pointing to the law’s stance on “voluntary intoxication”. But the investigation has since been reopened, amid public pressure.

New York is one of 19 states in the US that distinguish between “voluntary” and “involuntary” intoxication when it comes to determining consent in sexual violence cases.

But the Cornell case has spurred a push to remove the distinction from the law books. Critics have argued that sexual assault is no less grievous if a victim is drunk or has chosen to take drugs.

“I mean, to have New York, a supposedly progressive state, penalise people who are sexually abused for drinking is disgusting,” Boylan told Al Jazeera.

Vladimer, for her part, explained that distinguishing between “voluntary” and “involuntary” intoxication as a means for pursuing sexual assault cases shifts the focus onto the actions of victims, rather than perpetrators.

“We essentially have codified victim-blaming by saying if you become voluntarily intoxicated and then are sexually assaulted, you essentially cannot seek justice in our court system,” Vladimer told Al Jazeera.

In June, the New York state Senate unanimously passed a bill to allow sexual assault charges regardless of whether a victim is intoxicated voluntarily or involuntarily.

But the legislation has yet to be taken up in the state Assembly.

The rape-shield gap

New York’s rape-shield protections limit the use of evidence about a complainant’s sexual history and conduct in criminal proceedings. But those protections do not currently extend to civil cases.

This distinction could matter in the Cornell case because Doe filed a civil lawsuit.

Vladimer said questions about a survivor’s behaviour could come up in the discovery process of a civil case, as well as in court.

“There is the potential of her having to face questions about things like her sexual history,” Vladimer said.

Bridie Farrell, the director of victim rights advocacy and legislation at the law firm Weitz and Luxenberg, told Al Jazeera that she has seen major differences in how male and female survivors are questioned in civil cases where this practice is still permitted.

In one case involving a brother and sister who were both sexually assaulted, Farrell said the man was not questioned about his sexual history while the woman was “grilled on it”.

A bill sponsored by State Senator Liz Krueger would extend rape-shield protections to civil proceedings. The measure passed the Senate in June and is currently before the Assembly Judiciary Committee.

Retaliatory defamation lawsuits

Advocates are also pushing for legislation to prevent retaliatory defamation lawsuits.

Boylan said she has spent more than $2m defending herself in legal proceedings connected to her accusations against Cuomo, who stepped down as New York governor in 2021.

He has repeatedly denied any allegations of wrongdoing, despite a state attorney general’s report that concluded he “engaged in conduct constituting sexual harassment”.

“Every step of the way, we have a system that penalises people for speaking up about their own harm,” Boylan said.

Boylan and Charlotte Bennett, a former aide who also accused Cuomo of sexual harassment, are proponents of the Speak Your Truth Act, which would provide legal protections for people who publicly report sexual assault, harassment or discrimination.

The bill, sponsored by Assembly member Jessica Gonzalez-Rojas, would make certain communications about sexual assault, harassment or discrimination privileged when they are made without malice.

It would also allow survivors of sexual misconduct who successfully defend themselves against a defamation lawsuit to recover legal fees and costs. The bill remains in an Assembly committee.

A recent win, a long way to go

For Bridie Farrell, the victims’ rights advocate, the fight for legal change is personal.

Farrell was a 15-year-old competitive speed skater in 1997 when she said she was sexually abused by her 33-year-old teammate and mentor. She came forward with her story of abuse in 2013.

By then, the statute of limitations in her case had expired. Farrell later became an advocate for changes to New York’s laws, helping to pass the Child Victims Act in 2019 that extended the time available for survivors of childhood sexual abuse to pursue criminal and civil claims.

The law allowed Farrell to file her own case, which she did in 2020. She tells Al Jazeera that a trial has finally been scheduled for June 2027.

“Before we passed the Child Victims Act in 2019, New York was one of the worst in the country,” Farrell said of the situation for sexual assault survivors seeking justice.

Farrell considers the legal impediments to Doe’s case — like the “voluntary intoxication” statute — all too predictable. “I’m not surprised if we haven’t updated a law that is archaic,” she said.

Still, lawmakers have signalled willingness to reform such laws. In announcing the state Assembly’s working group on sexual-assault laws, Speaker Carl Heastie pledged to “thoughtfully” consider how the state can strengthen its laws.

“The allegations being reported out of Cornell University are truly horrifying,” Heastie said on Wednesday. “We want to do everything we can to ensure victims of sexual assault see justice served.”

But survivors and sexual violence advocates say the Cornell case points to problems that go beyond any single law. They hope to see widespread systemic and societal change.

“Changing legislation is incredibly important. But legislation in a lot of cases can only go [as far as] the paper that it’s written on,” Boylan said. “It would be amiss to orient this horrible, tragic, unacceptable, infuriating case in isolation without looking at the broader rape culture of our state and our country.”