Courts

MATTHEW Perry’s live-in assistant has been jailed for three years and five months after injecting the actor with ketamine and leaving him alone to die.

Kenneth Iwamasa, 60, learned his fate as he appeared in federal court in Los Angeles on Wednesday.

He was the fifth and final defendant to be sentenced for playing a role in the actor’s 2023 overdose death.

Iwamasa, who was previously out on bail, avoided photographs by turning up to court at 7am when the doors opened, two hours ahead of the hearing, a source told The U.S. Sun.

He was then granted a delayed surrender date of July 17.

Los Angeles Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett also ordered him to pay fines of $10,000 and $100 and be on supervised released for two years.

JAIL TIME

Matthew Perry’s street dealer gets 2yrs after admitting he’s ‘haunted by mistake’

Iwamasa wore a grey suit and matching tie with a white shirt for the hearing.

“Kenny wishes he would have had the strength to push back and say no and for that he will forever be remorseful,” his lawyer, Alan Eisner, said as he stood beside him outside of the court.

“Kenny is not the only person here who partook in this tragic event.”

He said Perry had agency, and his family should have also been there for him during his relapse.

“Mr Perry’s family could have said no along the way,” he bizarrely stated.

His loved ones previously insisted they had no idea he had fallen back into addiction.

The attorney said the blame shouldn’t all fall on his client, a man who is at the “low end of the totem pole” and wasn’t benefiting financially like those who sold him the drugs.

Asked why he left him alone to die after injecting him with the drug, the lawyer called the comments “vindictive” and said it was an unfair narrative.

Perry’s stepfather, Keith Morrison, who arrived with the actor’s mother, Suzanne, gave an emotional impact statement, along with estate manager, according to the New York Post.

Iwamasa was reportedly on the verge of tears as Morrison addressed him in court but he did not speak to reporters outside.

Although he pleaded guilty, his counsel argued that he was trapped in a toxic employer-employee dynamic and felt unable to refuse Perry’s requests.

The actor’s publicist, Lisa Calio, who was close to him for 30 years and is now the CEO of The Matthew Perry Foundation, wrote a heartbreaking letter to the judge and slammed Iwamasa.

She claimed he hatched a delusional plan to get rid of those tasked with keeping Perry safe so he could run the show and live a lavish lifestyle, before sourcing drugs for him.

She wrote, “His narcissistic, outrageous, irresponsible behavior, his psychotic plan, caused him to heat up the jacuzzi, give Matthew the giant shot he requested and leave him alone to die.”

Referencing the day Perry was found dead, she recalled, “I received a text from Kenny at 4 a.m. as he was driving one of Matthew’s cars from the house in the Hollywood Hills to the house in the Palisades. And he was loving it.”

She claimed, “Kenny convinced Matthew that there were too many people around and that he didn’t need to spend the money on them anymore. And that battle, Kenny won. I was not aware.”

Calio claimed that it was “the beginning of the end.”

She added, “Whatever sentence he receives, it won’t be long enough.

“He will always be known as the man who killed Matthew Perry, I suppose there should be some comfort in that.”

Before he was Perry’s live-in assistant, the star had other staff members and a sober companion who saved his life.

Iwamasa had been working for Perry’s manager, Doug Chapin, since the 1990s and took a more hands-on role as the actor’s live-in assistant around 2022, according to reports.

Court documents showed he was paid around $150,000 a year to assist Perry around the clock and was tasked with helping to manage his sobriety.

They lived together at a Beverly Hills rental after Perry sold his “mansion in the sky” in Century City and was waiting for renovation work to be completed on his new home in the Pacific Palisades.

As Perry relapsed, Iwamasa obtained ketamine from suppliers and was taught how to administer it, according to court documents.

Iwamasa admitted to injecting Perry with the drug three times on the day he died, including twice in 40 minutes.

He then left him alone near his hot tub at the star’s home in the Pacific Palisades, and when he returned, he found the actor unresponsive in the water.

Iwamasa was accused of repeatedly lying to investigators, including allegedly hiding the fact that he injected Perry with several ketamine shots on the day of his death, court documents also show.

He later admitted he “cleaned up the scene” during a phone call with middleman Erik Fleming, officials claimed.

The assistant reportedly said he got rid of syringes and bottles, changed passwords on Perry’s devices and “deleted everything.”

The five responsible for Matthew Perry’s death

Here are the five individuals allegedly behind Perry’s ketamine overdose.

• “Ketamine Queen of Los Angeles” Jasveen Sangha – Sangha, 42, pleaded guilty in September 2025 to federal charges for supplying the ketamine that caused Matthew Perry’s fatal overdose. Prosecutors say that after Perry’s death, she reportedly searched online, “can ketamine be listed as a cause of death.” She has now been jailed for 15 years.
• “Dr. P” Dr. Salvador Plasencia – Plasencia, 44, was one of the physicians who illegally supplied ketamine to Perry before his death. He pleaded guilty in mid‑2025 to several federal counts of ketamine distribution. In December 2025, he was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison and fined; he was remanded immediately to begin serving his term.
• Dr. Mark Chavez – Chavez, 55, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute ketamine in connection with Perry’s death. In December 2025, he was sentenced to eight months of home confinement, ordered to complete community service, and placed on supervised release.
• Kenneth Iwamasa – Iwamasa, 60, Perry’s live‑in assistant, admitted he obtained and administered ketamine to Perry as part of the scheme. He pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute ketamine causing death and is set to be sentenced in May.
• Erik Fleming – Fleming, 56, an intermediary dealer who helped coordinate the flow of ketamine from suppliers to Perry’s assistant, pleaded guilty to conspiracy and distribution charges. He was sentenced to two years in prison.

It was several months before it was revealed that Iwamasa played a part in Perry’s death, shocking not only his family and friends but thousands of fans worldwide.

He pleaded guilty in August 2024 to one count of conspiracy to distribute ketamine resulting in death and initially faced 15 years behind bars.

But prosecutors said in court documents that he provided significant cooperation in the government’s investigation, leading to a reduced sentencing recommendation of three years and four months.

Perry’s mum, Suzanne Morrison, also described Iwamasa in a victim impact statement ahead of sentencing as a “man without conscience” and said the family felt betrayed by him.

In the statement, Morrison said Iwamasa not only delivered the fatal dose but also painted himself as someone who was trying to help Perry, and even went as far as begging to speak at his funeral.

She said in court filings, “He clung to me and the family as if he was somehow the good guy who tried to save Matthew.”

She added: “We trusted a man without a conscience, and my son paid the price.”

Four others were convicted in recent months after being involved in Perry’s death.

Erik Fleming, a middleman and former drug counsellor, was sentenced to two years in prison, while Jasveen Sangha, also known as “The Ketamine Queen”, was handed 15 years.

Dr. Salvador Plasencia, who was involved in supplying and administering ketamine linked to Perry, received two and a half years.

He obtained the drug from a fellow doctor, Mark Chavez, who received eight months of home detention after pleading guilty.

Perry rose to fame as Chandler Bing on the hit 90s sitcom Friends.

The Trump administration has sought to pressure international officials who scrutinise reported abuses by Israeli forces.

The United States government has returned UN human rights expert Francesca Albanese to a list of sanctioned individuals after a judge had granted a temporary injunction against the designation.

On Wednesday, an update appeared on the US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) website, indicating that Albanese had been added to the agency’s list of Specially Designated Nationals (SDN), without offering further details.

Albanese serves as the UN’s special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territory, and her criticism of Israeli policies has made her a target under US President Donald Trump.

In July 2025, Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a statement announcing sanctions against Albanese, accusing her of “lawfare” and “biased and malicious activities” against Israel.

He also cited her recommendation that the International Criminal Court (ICC) should issue arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Minister of Defence Yoav Gallant, which it ultimately did in November 2024.

The announcement was one in a series of actions the Trump administration has taken against critics it sees as hostile to US and Israeli interests.

The sanctions barred Albanese from entering the US and froze her assets in the country. They also prevented any US-based entity from doing business with her.

Albanese, an Italian citizen, has close ties to the US: Her daughter is a US citizen, and the family maintains a residence in the country.

In February, members of Albanese’s family filed a lawsuit on her behalf, stating that the sanctions had disrupted her life, even preventing her from accessing her bank account.

The lawsuit also accused the Trump administration of trying to intimidate those who speak out against Israeli rights abuses.

Albanese has been vocal in her assessment that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza, a view echoed by leading human rights experts around the world. More than 75,000 Palestinians have been killed in the territory since 2023, when Israel launched its genocidal war on the Strip.

Albanese is not alone in facing economic penalties for her work. Since taking office for a second term, Trump is estimated to have issued sanctions against nine ICC judges, as well as prosecutors for the court.

The judges and prosecutors were reportedly involved in probes into abuses by US and Israeli forces.

Legal experts have condemned the sanctions as an assault on international law and an effort to shield the US and its allies from scrutiny.

On May 13, US District Judge Richard Leon, an appointee of former President George W Bush, ruled in favour of the Albanese family’s lawsuit, granting a temporary injunction against the sanctions.

Leon found that the Trump administration had used the penalties to curtail Albanese’s constitutionally protected speech. He also stated that Albanese could not be blamed for the ICC’s actions.

“It is undisputed that her recommendations have no binding effect on the ICC’s actions,” Leon wrote. “They are nothing more than her opinion.”

As a result of the ruling, Albanese was removed from the sanctions list this month.

But the Trump administration appealed Leon’s order. It also said it would restore her to the sanctions list as soon as it was able, though it is unclear what prompted Wednesday’s change.

A new report warns that Britain is undergoing a “deeply troubling transformation” in how it treats political protest as climate activists and pro-Palestine campaigners increasingly face lengthy prison sentences, sweeping legal restrictions and months in jail before trial.

The report, Britain’s Political Prisoners, copublished by researchers at the Centre for Climate Crime and Climate Justice at Queen Mary University of London and the campaign group Defend Our Juries, said the UK has “witnessed an increase in anti-protest powers granted to the police and the courts through legislation” that has “created a significantly more repressive legal terrain for activists engaging in civil disobedience and direct action”.

It traces the shift from crackdowns on protests by Extinction Rebellion, Black Lives Matter, Insulate Britain and Just Stop Oil to more recent prosecutions linked to Palestine solidarity actions, including campaigns targeting British factories operated by Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest weapons manufacturer.

The report, released on Tuesday, found that a combination of new laws, broader police powers and increasingly punitive court tactics has reshaped Britain’s protest landscape since 2019.

The United Kingdom has witnessed numerous mass protests and direct actions by activists to pressure the government to stop selling arms to Israel during its genocidal war on Gaza, in which more than 72,000 Palestinians have been killed, including more than 40,000 women, children and elderly.

So what does Britain’s shifting stance on protests mean for civil rights, and what’s behind the legal clampdown on climate and pro-Palestine protests?

How Britain’s legal system has changed since 2019

The report painted a stark picture of how Britain’s legal system has changed in response to climate and pro-Palestine direct action campaigns through a mix of new laws, expanded police powers and what campaigners describe as increasingly punitive court tactics. What this means for protesters is longer jail sentences, stricter bail conditions and harsher treatment in the courts than was once typical for acts of civil disobedience, according to the report.

At the centre of that shift are two major laws introduced after waves of demonstrations by groups such as Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil, two environmental groups that employ nonviolent civil disobedience tactics to pressure governments to address the climate crisis.

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 transformed the old common law offence of “public nuisance” into a formal criminal offence carrying a sentence of up to 10 years in prison. This means actions that seriously disrupt the public – such as blocking roads, stopping traffic or shutting down infrastructure – can now lead to far more severe criminal penalties than before because the offence was never previously codified into legislation. Campaigners said the law has given prosecutors a powerful new tool to pursue long prison sentences against protesters.

The Public Order Act 2023 introduced a series of protest-specific offences in May of that year, largely in response to climate protests by groups including Just Stop Oil, Insulate Britain and Extinction Rebellion, whose actions included blocking motorways, occupying oil terminals and targeting infrastructure projects in an attempt to pressure the government to halt new oil and gas extraction.

Such offences under the act included “locking on”, in which protesters attach themselves to roads, buildings, vehicles or each other using chains, glue or other devices to make removal difficult. The law also criminalised tunnelling, a tactic used by some activists to delay infrastructure projects, and introduced offences for disrupting major transport networks, oil terminals and other nationally important infrastructure. 

The legislation also significantly widened police powers whereby officers may now place restrictions on even one-person protests if they are deemed disruptive. Police were also granted powers to carry out stop-and-search operations in designated protest zones without needing reasonable suspicion that someone has committed an offence – a significant expansion of police authority criticised by civil liberties groups.

But the report argued the crackdown extends beyond parliament and into the courts.

One of its central findings is the growing use of civil injunctions and contempt of court proceedings against activists.

Oil companies, arms manufacturers, councils and universities have increasingly obtained court orders banning protests near their sites, the report said.

The report identified contempt of court as the most common route to imprisonment among the 249 protest-related cases it analysed. Contempt of court usually refers to someone disobeying a judge’s order or behaving in a way the court says interferes with justice. In protest cases, it has increasingly been used against activists who ignore injunctions or refuse to follow restrictions imposed during trials.

Because contempt proceedings are handled directly by judges rather than juries, campaigners argued they allow courts to imprison protesters more quickly and with fewer legal safeguards.

Researchers also highlighted what campaigners described as the “gagging” of defendants. Judges have increasingly stopped protesters from mentioning climate concerns, Gaza, international law or their political motivations in front of juries.

Courts have often argued that juries should focus only on whether a defendant broke the law, not on the political or moral reasons behind their actions. Critics said those restrictions prevent activists from fully explaining why they protested in the first place.

Campaigners also said the legal shift reflects a broader political change, driven in part by corporate lobbying under successive Conservative governments and continuing under Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Labour government. They argued that peaceful protest is increasingly being criminalised to protect corporate interests, regardless of wider ethical concerns about the supply of arms to Israel during its war on Gaza or opposing fossil fuel projects linked to the climate crisis.

Perhaps most controversially, the report pointed to the growing use of lengthy pretrial detention. That means protesters being held in prison before they have been convicted of any crime.

According to the findings, many activists spend months on remand awaiting trial while some Palestine Action defendants have been held for more than a year before their cases are heard in court.

In 60 percent of the cases studied, the final sentence handed down was shorter than the time defendants had already spent in custody awaiting trial.

Are lobbyists influencing the crackdown?

Tim Crosland, director of Defend Our Juries, said the findings challenge Britain’s claims of ensuring democratic protections.

“This report strips away the illusion that Britain remains committed to democratic principles,” Crosland said.

“It reveals that peaceful protesters are being jailed in ever-increasing numbers under pressure from the oil and arms industries, the Israeli government and their lobbyists.”

The report pointed to what it described as growing political and corporate pressure behind Britain’s crackdown on protest movements.

Researchers cited reports that parts of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act may have originated in proposals from the right-wing think tank Policy Exchange. According to the investigative news site Open Democracy, Policy Exchange has previously received funding from ExxonMobil. The think tank had earlier published a report titled Extremism Rebellion, which called for new laws targeting Extinction Rebellion activists.

Al Jazeera could not independently verify the links between the think tank and the legislation.

The report further alleged that British officials came under pressure from both Elbit Systems and the Israeli government to take a tougher approach towards Palestine Action protests targeting Elbit’s UK factories.

According to correspondence quoted by the researchers, the British government said in 2022 that it had “expressed our support in recognising the attacks and boycott on Elbit UK”. The report said the issue was later raised directly with then-Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab during a visit to Israel, where he reportedly “declared that the British government is committed to stopping the attacks”.

Zoe Blackler, founding director of the London events space Kairos, said: “In the face of this clampdown on the right to peaceful protest, we need to come together in solidarity and defiance.”

Which are the cases at the centre of Britain’s protest crackdown?

The report traced Britain’s hardening response to the protests through a series of landmark cases involving climate activists and Palestine solidarity campaigners, many of whom received lengthy prison sentences or spent months behind bars before trial.

Among the most high-profile is the case of the Whole Truth Five, a group of Just Stop Oil activists jailed in July 2024 over a Zoom call discussing plans to disrupt the M25 motorway. The five were convicted of conspiracy to cause a public nuisance and initially sentenced to between four and five years in prison.

The report described the case as one of the clearest examples of the tougher approach now being taken towards protest movements. Campaigners argued the sentences were extraordinary because the activists were punished largely for planning disruptive action rather than carrying it out. Prosecutors relied on conspiracy laws, which allow people to be charged for agreeing to commit an offence even if the planned action never ultimately happens.

Four Palestine Action activists were also sentenced to between 23 and 27 months for conspiring to damage an Israeli-linked arms factory in Wales. Meanwhile, four Just Stop Oil activists received prison terms of up to 30 months over plans to disrupt Manchester Airport despite never reaching the site. A fifth defendant, Noah Crane, spent almost a year in jail on remand before later being acquitted.

Another major case involved the Filton 24, Palestine Action activists prosecuted after a protest at an Elbit Systems factory in Bristol. Some defendants were held on remand for up to 18 months before trial.

After several activists were acquitted of aggravated burglary charges, most were eventually granted bail.

The report said the case raises “serious concerns” that prosecutors used unusually serious charges to justify holding defendants in prison for long periods before trial.

The report also highlighted the Brize Norton Five, activists accused of spray-painting air force planes in protest against Britain’s military links to Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza. According to the report, the group has remained on remand since August and is not expected to stand trial until 2027, meaning some could spend close to two years in jail before a verdict is reached.

Other cases revealed the growing use of judicial “gagging orders”.

During the retrial of the Filton 6, a separate trial from the Filton 24, the judge barred defendants from mentioning Gaza, Elbit’s role in supplying weapons to Israel and their political motivations for protesting. Critics argued such restrictions make it harder for juries to hear the broader context behind direct action campaigns.

In another case, three Insulate Britain activists were imprisoned for contempt of court after defying a judge’s order not to mention the “climate crisis” or “fuel poverty” before a jury.

Despite the legal restrictions, several juries continued to acquit activists. The report pointed to acquittals involving Just Stop Oil protesters, Extinction Rebellion activists and a hung jury in the first Filton 6 trial as evidence that some jurors remained unconvinced by the increasingly aggressive prosecution of protest movements.

Kerry Moscogiuri, Amnesty International UK CEO, told Al Jazeera that “the right to protest is being eroded before our eyes.”

“We’re seeing a worrying shift where the state is using remand, sweeping injunctions and contempt proceedings to lock people up or silence them before they’ve even stood trial.

“The broader legal implications here are concerning. It’s not just about one group of activists; it’s about a systemic attempt to shut down dissent, something we’ve been ringing the alarm on for a long time.

“By replacing the presumption of liberty with preemptive legal intimidation, it creates a chilling effect, undermines the rule of law and flies in the face of basic human rights.”

REBEKAH Vardy insists that “hell will freeze over” before she ever apologises to former pal Coleen Rooney over their Wagatha Christie row.

The wife of footie star Jamie said she must live with her libel loss to Wayne Rooney’s missus.

But Becky, 44 — accused of leaking stories about Coleen — said: “I’m never going to apologise for something I didn’t do. Hell will freeze over before I do that.”

Rebekah says her Wagatha Christie beef with Coleen is “done, it’s over” — and does not care what her ex-pal thinks about her.

The wife of former Leicester striker Jamie insists her own “peace” is more important amid the fallout to their legal battle.

In new ITV reality show The Vardys, she admits to still suffering from a public backlash after losing her libel case against Wayne Rooney’s missus.
Becky, 44, had taken legal action after Coleen claimed stories about her were leaked from her Instagram account.

back to work

Fresh twist in Lee Andrews’ disappearance hours after false arrest claims

SIN CITY

Inside Tom Clare’s boozy Vegas stag do as he prepares to marry Molly Smith

And she says: “I’m living with the judgment the judge made but, still to this day, I believe she was wrong.”

The mum of five goes on: “People constantly go, ‘Well, it’s not going to change anything unless you apologise’ — but I’m not apologising for something I didn’t do. Like never, ever, going to apologise for something I didn’t do — it’s never going to happen. Hell will freeze over before I do that.

“It’s over, it’s done, I’m not going to carry on living in the past. I’m so f***ing bored of it.”

The Sun revealed last year that the Vardys had signed a deal for a tell-all reality series, and the cameras followed them as Jamie, 39, left Leicester for Italian Serie A minnows Cremonese.

But before Becky packed her bags, she opened up about the High Court battle which finally ended last May, when she was ordered to pay Coleen’s legal fees of around £1.2million.

She says: “I don’t have any negative feelings towards her whatsoever. Some people might go, ‘That’s bull’, but whatever, that’s your opinion. If I ever saw her or bump into her, people will assume it’ll be like handbags at dawn, or ‘Birkins at dawn’, whatever they want to say. ‘Wag War 4’. I’ve forgotten how many headlines have been ‘Wag War’, but my peace is too important.”

She adds of her one-time friend: “I’ve got no idea what she thinks of me, but I’m not bothered.”

Becky was heavily pregnant when Coleen publicly revealed in 2019 she had turned detective to find out who was leaking stories about her.

Becky’s Prem-winning hubby has stayed silent on it, until now.

He says: “Becky’s a strong woman. If she wasn’t, it would definitely have broken her 100 per cent. But that’s not her.”

He adds: “People thinking that Bex was a villain, it’s just a load of s but everyone close to her knows, that’s all she needs. It was really tough seeing Bex in pain, obviously with all the crap coming her way. As a husband, the only thing you can do is be there for her.”

The couple celebrate their tenth anniversary today — and their close bond is evident during The Vardys’ opening episode.

Whether it’s playfighting in their home gym, Jamie’s disdain for her “banana breath” or Becky’s utter bewilderment at how “chilled out” her husband is, they are perfect reality TV material.

Becky says: “We have five kids, but if you include Jamie in that, we have six.”

Jamie is seen telling his young children about him leaving Leicester after 13 years.

But the transfer was far from straightforward — as he was initially bound for a Dutch club.

Becky rants: “The last 24 hours has been a total s*** show. Yesterday morning we were all on holiday in Portugal, chilling, rosé, life couldn’t get any better. And then Jamie tells me, ‘I’m going to sign for a Dutch team.’ I ask him, ‘Are you sure?’ And he seems pretty sure at that point.

“So I thought, ‘OK, that’s fine then, we’re going to Holland’ and literally, just as we’re boarding a flight home from Portugal, he changed his mind — standard Jamie.

“We landed back in the UK at 3pm, dropped the kids off, went straight back to the airport and back out on a flight to Italy.”

• The Vardys starts on ITV, June 2, 9pm, with all episodes on ITVX.

Judge says the human smuggling probe was reopened after the Salvadoran national filed his lawsuit against his deportation.

A United States judge has dismissed an indictment against Kilmar Abrego Garcia after finding that he would not have been prosecuted if he had not challenged his deportation.

On Friday, US District Judge Waverly Crenshaw said the Department of Justice only reopened its human smuggling probe stemming from a 2022 traffic stop after Salvadoran national Abrego Garcia filed his lawsuit.

“The court does not reach its conclusion lightly,” Crenshaw wrote.

“The objective evidence here shows that, absent Abrego’s successful lawsuit challenging his removal to El Salvador, the Government would not have brought this prosecution.”

Last year, Abrego Garcia became a symbol for President Donald Trump’s drive to clamp down on illegal migration and was sent to a mega prison in El Salvador despite a prior court banning him from being returned there due to a risk of persecution.

While the Trump administration brought Abrego Garcia back to the US in June of the same year, his return came only after prosecutors had secured a criminal indictment charging him with human smuggling and conspiracy to commit human smuggling.

Abrego Garcia pleaded not guilty to the claim and argued that he was being prosecuted in retaliation for suing the government to be returned to the US from El Salvador.

In the ruling to dismiss the indictment, Crenshaw wrote that the timing of the charges was central to the “presumption of vindictiveness”.

With Homeland Security already aware of the traffic stop two years ago and having closed the case against Abrego Garcia when it deported him, the case was only reopened once the US Supreme Court had ruled that he be returned from El Salvador.

Abrego Garcia’s deportation had violated a 2019 immigration court order that granted him protection against being returned to his home country after a judge found that he faced danger from a gang that targeted his family.

Despite his return to the US and his family, Trump officials have said that Abrego Garcia cannot remain in the country and have pledged to deport him again to a third country, a country where the person does not have any ties.

Turkiye’s main opposition leader Ozgur Ozel has vowed not to leave party headquarters after a court ruling removed him from power. Speaking to supporters in Ankara, Ozel accused judges and prosecutors of carrying out a coup attempt against his party.

141 UN member states voted in support of the ICJ’s finding climate change is an ‘existential threat’.

The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has voted to support a landmark ruling from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which found states have a legal responsibility to act to prevent the climate crisis from worsening.

More than two-thirds of UN member states, 141, voted in favour of the resolution on Wednesday, with eight voting no and 28 abstaining.

Ralph Regenvanu, the minister for climate change from Vanuatu, which championed the case, described the vote as a victory for “communities on the frontlines of the climate crisis”.

“Today the international community affirmed that climate change is not only a political and economic challenge, but a matter of law, justice, and human rights,” Regenvanu said in a statement.

“For vulnerable countries like Vanuatu, this resolution is deeply significant because it confirms that no State is above its obligations to protect people, future generations, and our planet.”

The historic ruling from The Hague-based court in July last year found that states have a legal obligation to act on the “existential threat” of climate change.

The case was the biggest ever to be considered by the ICJ’s 15 judges, who reviewed tens of thousands of pages of written submissions and heard two weeks of oral arguments before delivering their verdict.

The case came to the court at the request of the UNGA after a resolution led by Vanuatu was adopted by consensus in March 2023.

Wednesday’s vote, by contrast, attracted a number of objections, with Belarus, Iran, Israel, Liberia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, the United States and Yemen voting no.

Al Jazeera reported in February that the US had sent a diplomatic cable urging UN member states not to support the resolution.

“We are strongly urging Vanuatu to immediately withdraw its draft resolution and cease attempting to wield the Court’s Advisory Opinion as a basis for creating an avenue to pursue any misguided claims of international legal obligations,” a copy of the cable seen by Al Jazeera stated.

Wesley Morgan, a fellow with the Climate Council, an Australian nonprofit, said the vote confirmed states had a legal duty to act on climate change.

“This landmark resolution is a massive victory for Vanuatu and the Pacific leaders who have spent decades fighting for survival on the frontlines of the climate crisis and a warning for Australian governments,” Morgan said in a statement.

“For far too long, fossil fuel heavyweights have treated climate action as a political choice, but the UN General Assembly has now confirmed it is a binding legal duty,” he added.

The indictment of former Cuban President Raul Castro over a 1996 plane shootdown revives a decades-old case at a moment of heightened US pressure on Havana. Al Jazeera’s Kimberly Halkett explains why the timing matters.

On Monday morning, a jury in Oakland, California, announced its verdict in one of the most-watched tech feuds between billionaire Elon Musk and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman. The nine-member jury handed a decisive victory to Altman, saying Musk had waited too long to bring his claims against the artificial intelligence company and its top executives.

Musk, who cofounded OpenAI as a nonprofit, had filed a $150bn lawsuit against the organisation, Altman and its president, Greg Brockman, accusing them of turning it into a for-profit entity for personal enrichment.

The verdict, however, stopped short of resolving the central question at the heart of the case, whether OpenAI betrayed the nonprofit mission on which it was founded in 2015 as it transformed from a research lab focused on benefitting humanity into one of the world’s most powerful AI companies.

Instead, the case became focused on a procedural issue. After deliberating for less than two hours, the jury unanimously found that the statute of limitations had expired before Musk filed the lawsuit in 2024, meaning jurors concluded he had waited too long to bring his claims under the applicable legal deadline. US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers accepted the finding and dismissed the case.

The ruling removes a major legal threat for OpenAI at a pivotal moment for the company, which is deepening its commercial partnerships, expanding its relationship with Microsoft and moving towards what could become one of the largest public offerings in Silicon Valley history; while for Musk, the ruling leaves room to argue that the case was lost on timing rather than substance.

Shortly after the verdict, Musk repeated his accusations on X. “Altman & Brockman did in fact enrich themselves by stealing a charity. The only question is WHEN they did it!” Musk wrote on X. “Creating a precedent to loot charities is incredibly destructive to charitable giving in America.”

Musk has decided to appeal, ensuring that the increasingly bitter feud between two of Silicon Valley’s most powerful figures is unlikely to end any time soon.

How did Musk and Altman fall out?

Musk and Altman cofounded OpenAI in 2015 alongside Brockman and other researchers at a time when concerns were growing over how AI could reshape society.

The idea, according to testimony and internal discussions presented during the trial, was that the company could focus on building safe AI systems that benefitted humanity rather than prioritising shareholder returns.

Musk and Altman also believed the nonprofit structure would help OpenAI compete with technology giants such as Google by attracting top researchers and positioning the organisation as a mission-driven alternative.

Musk claims he contributed roughly $38m to OpenAI during its early years, but relations between the founders later deteriorated sharply. He resigned from OpenAI’s board in February 2018, officially citing potential conflicts of interest as Tesla became more focused on AI.

But the split deepened after OpenAI created a for-profit subsidiary and Microsoft invested heavily in the company. Microsoft has since committed tens of billions of dollars to its partnership with OpenAI, helping transform ChatGPT into one of the defining products of the global AI boom.

Musk became increasingly critical of the company, arguing that OpenAI had moved far beyond the nonprofit vision on which it was founded. In 2023, he launched a rival AI company, xAI, the maker of the Grok chatbot, before filing his lawsuit against OpenAI the following year.

Why did the case collapse?

At the centre of the trial was a relatively technical legal question about when Musk became aware that OpenAI was moving towards a profit-driven structure.

Because the lawsuit was filed in 2024, Musk needed to convince jurors that the alleged wrongdoing occurred within the legal time limit for bringing his claims.

Musk argued that his concerns fully crystallised only in 2023, particularly after Microsoft’s big investments into OpenAI’s for-profit arm.

But OpenAI’s lawyers argued that Musk had known for years that the company planned to pursue a commercial structure and raise huge amounts of outside funding.

Evidence presented during the trial showed that discussions about creating a for-profit arm dated back to at least 2017. Jurors also heard testimony that Altman had sent Musk documents in 2018 outlining plans for OpenAI to raise billions of dollars through a for-profit structure.

Ultimately, the jury sided with OpenAI’s argument that Musk could have filed his lawsuit much earlier – and therefore waited too long.

That meant jurors never had to answer the more explosive question at the centre of the case about whether OpenAI had actually betrayed its founding mission.

What did OpenAI argue?

OpenAI maintained throughout the trial that there was never an agreement to remain a nonprofit indefinitely. Its lawyers argued that Musk understood from the beginning that developing cutting-edge artificial intelligence would require extraordinary levels of funding and computing power.

OpenAI also portrayed Musk’s lawsuit as partly motivated by rivalry. By the time the case reached court, Musk’s xAI had emerged as a direct competitor to OpenAI in the race to develop advanced AI systems.

Meanwhile, OpenAI had become one of the most powerful companies in the technology industry, reportedly valued at more than $800bn and moving towards what could eventually become one of the largest public offerings in history.

Lawyers for OpenAI argued that Musk became hostile only after losing influence within the company and watching Altman turn OpenAI into the dominant force in generative AI.

What questions did the trial leave unanswered?

Although the verdict was a clear legal victory for OpenAI, the trial never became the sweeping test case about the future of artificial intelligence that many had expected.

Because the case was resolved on procedural grounds, the court did not answer some of the biggest questions raised by the AI boom: how these systems should be governed, who should benefit economically from them, and whether companies developing increasingly powerful AI tools can still claim to act in the public interest while pursuing enormous commercial growth.

The trial also touched only briefly on broader concerns surrounding AI development, including transparency, labour and the extraction of data used to train AI systems.

Nicole Turner Lee, director of the Centre for Technology Innovation, told Al Jazeera that one of the central problems surrounding AI is that the technology is deeply “extractive”.

“It does undergo theft where people do not consent as to whether or not their information, their image, their voice, their text are actually being extracted,” she said, raising concerns about compensation and consent in AI training systems.

Those issues remained largely outside the scope of the trial due to it ultimately centring on procedural issues.

The ruling, therefore, also removed the possibility of a far more disruptive outcome that could have threatened OpenAI’s corporate structure, its partnership with Microsoft and the wider wave of investment pouring into the AI industry.

But the broader debate over AI’s future is far from settled. With Musk preparing an appeal, the courtroom battle between the two former allies looks set to continue alongside wider questions about how AI should be governed.

United States President Donald Trump has withdrawn his $10bn lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) stemming from a leak of his tax returns and said his administration will create a $1.77bn anti-weaponisation fund that would compensate some of Trump’s political allies.

The court filing, released on Monday in Florida, did not disclose the terms of the deal, including whether either party settled.

However, the Department of Justice (DOJ) on Monday announced the establishment of a $1.77bn fund called the Anti-Weaponisation Fund that would “provide a systematic process to hear and redress claims of others who suffered weaponisation and lawfare”.

The DOJ said in its press release that it was part of the settlement agreement.

ABC News first reported last week that the president was prepared to drop the lawsuit as part of a deal that would create the fund to pay Trump allies who were perceived as wrongly investigated and prosecuted.

Trump, his adult sons Donald Trump Jr and Eric Trump, and the Trump Organization sued the IRS in January, arguing the agency should have done more to prevent a former contractor from disclosing their tax returns to media outlets during the president’s first term.

The case arose from former IRS contractor Charles Littlejohn’s leak of Trump’s tax returns to media outlets, including the New York Times and ProPublica, in 2019 and 2020.

Those returns showed that Trump paid little or no income taxes in many years, the Times reported in 2020.

Prosecutors charged Littlejohn in 2023 with leaking tax records of Trump and thousands of other wealthy Americans to the media, saying he was motivated by a political agenda. Littlejohn later pleaded guilty to improper disclosures, and a judge sentenced him to five years in prison.

Trump filed the lawsuit personally, not in his official capacity as president.

Political pushback

While the court filing did not mention the terms of any potential deal, news that the president would create a fund to protect his political allies sparked backlash.

Representative Jamie Raskin, a Democrat from Maryland, called the idea “unconstitutional”.

“This, of course, is a political grievance fund that Donald Trump can use to pay off his friends,” Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said in an interview on Sunday with the ABC News programme This Week.

“If these people have a valid cause of action, they should bring it to the court like every other American does, and use the system of due process, and prove things by clear and convincing evidence, or a preponderance of evidence. Go and prove it. But the idea that Donald Trump can just pass it out like a pardon is absurd,” he said.

California Governor Gavin Newsom also criticised the president amid reports of the deal.

“Donald Trump wants to settle his joke lawsuit against his own IRS department to hand out $1.7 BILLION of OUR TAX DOLLARS to Jan. 6th insurrectionists and his cronies,” Newsom said in a post on X.

“It is an outrage that the American taxpayers are having to pay for this and that we have a president who is exercising such open corruption in front of everyone and expecting us to go along with it,” Representative Pramila Jayapal, a Democrat from Washington state, told the progressive MeidasTouch network.

Despite the criticisms, it is not clear who would specifically benefit from the funds.

Trump has long claimed that the DOJ under his predecessor, President Joe Biden, a Democrat, was weaponised against him, pointing to the criminal charges where he faced allegations that he conspired to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, which Trump lost by more than seven million votes, and that he retained classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate.

Merrick Garland, the attorney general during the Biden administration, denied allegations of politicisation. The Justice Department also investigated prominent Democrats, including Biden’s son Hunter Biden and former US Senator Bob Menendez, a Democrat from New Jersey.

“The machinery of government should never be weaponised against any American, and it is this Department’s intention to make right the wrongs that were previously done while ensuring this never happens again,” said Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a release.

However, the Trump administration has actively pursued cases against perceived political enemies, including former FBI director James Comey and former Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, Fed Governor Lisa Cook, New York Attorney General Letitia James, Arizona Senator Mark Kelly, and California Senator Adam Schiff. 

The DOJ said that there is legal precedent for the fund, pointing to a programme called “Keepseagle” under the administration of former US President Barack Obama, a Democrat. That created a fund to address allegations of racism against the federal government.

The White House referred Al Jazeera to the DOJ for a request for comment. The DOJ did not respond.

The government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW) announced on X that it would be investigating how the funds would be used.

“While Americans are struggling with an affordability crisis, President Trump plans to use nearly $1.8bn in taxpayer money to pay off his friends and allies—including potentially the violent insurrectionists who attacked the Capitol on January 6th,” CREW’s president, Donald K Sherman, said in a statement provided to Al Jazeera.

“By settling his absurd $10bn lawsuit against his own administration, Trump and the Justice Department just engaged in the most brazen act of self-dealing in the history of the presidency, and did so quickly in order to avoid the scrutiny of the judicial process, while quite likely violating the Constitution’s Domestic Emoluments Clause in the process. This is one of the single most corrupt acts in American history.”

A long time coming

Lawyers for the president asked a federal judge in April to pause the case for 90 days while the two sides worked to reach a settlement or resolution.

“This limited pause will neither prejudice the parties nor delay ultimate resolution,” the filing in April said. “Rather, the extension will promote judicial economy and allow the Parties to explore avenues that could narrow or resolve the issues efficiently.”

When asked in February how he would handle any potential damages from the case, Trump said, “I think what we’ll do is do something for charity.”

“We could make it a substantial amount,” he said at the time. “Nobody would care because it’s going to go to numerous very good charities.”

The litigation against the IRS raised novel legal questions, including conflicts of interest, about whether a president can sue his own government. It is not clear if the judge will accept Trump’s withdrawal of the case.

Under the US Constitution, federal courts may only hear genuine disputes between litigants with opposing stakes in the outcome.

US District Court Judge Kathleen Williams in Miami, who oversees Trump’s lawsuit, wrote last month that it was unclear whether the parties to the lawsuit were “truly antagonistic to each other”.

Williams had set a court hearing for May 27 to hear arguments on whether she should dismiss the case on those grounds.

South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa has refused to resign over a “cash-in-sofa scandal” that continues to haunt his presidency.

Ramaphosa, who addressed the nation on Monday to declare his intention to remain in his post, is set to face a multi-party impeachment committee, which will investigate allegations that he covered up a 2020 break-in at his private ranch and the theft of more than $500,000, concealing the incident from police and tax authorities.

The committee’s findings could spell his impeachment; however, parliament has not provided a timeframe for the investigation, which has yet to commence.

Analysts say the scandal, which has been dubbed “Farmgate”, has been particularly damaging for a president who rode to power in 2018 on an anticorruption mandate, after the much-criticised presidency of Jacob Zuma. Now, eight years later, the case of the cash found stuffed in a sofa at his game ranch could be what takes Ramaphosa down.

Can the South African president survive? Here is what we know.

What’s the scandal all about?

In February 2020, burglars allegedly broke into Ramaphosa’s luxury private ranch, Phala Phala, in Limpopo province, South Africa, and stole $580,000. The cash was said to have been hidden inside furniture at the farm – hence the “Farmgate” label.

Ramaphosa has been accused of covering up the theft and keeping private efforts to trace the burglars a secret to avoid an investigation into where the money had come from – and why it was hidden in a sofa.

Corruption allegations surfaced when a former head of South Africa’s state security agency walked into a police station in 2022 and accused the president of money laundering in relation to the stolen cash.

Later that year, an independent parliamentary committee found that Ramaphosa “may have committed” serious violations and misconduct. In particular, the panel found he had failed to properly report a theft to police as required under anticorruption laws and “acted in a manner inconsistent with his office”.

At the time, the African National Congress (ANC) had a strong majority in parliament – with 230 seats out of 400. It was therefore able to reject the report and refused to open impeachment proceedings.

But the left-wing Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) challenged this at the Constitutional Court in Cape Town, which, last week, overturned the government’s rejection of the 2022 parliamentary report and referred it to a multi-party impeachment committee for a full investigation.

What has Ramaphosa said?

Ramaphosa has always denied allegations of corruption and maintains that the stolen cash came from selling buffalo.

Since the constitutional court’s ruling last week, Ramaphosa has been facing renewed calls for his resignation, mostly from opposition leaders. In a televised address on Monday, the president refused to step down.

“While there have been calls in some circles that I should resign, nothing in the Constitutional Court judgement compels me to resign my office,” he said.

“Since a criminal complaint was laid against me in June 2022, I have consistently maintained that I have not stolen public money, committed any crime, nor violated my oath of office,” Ramaphosa said in his address, adding that he has cooperated in all investigations.

The president rejected the 2022 report from the independent panel again, saying: “The complaints against me are based on hearsay allegations. No evidence, let alone sufficient evidence, has been presented to prove that I committed any violation, let alone a serious violation of the Constitution or law, or serious misconduct as set out in the Constitution.”

If the committee does find enough evidence against him, it could direct him to be impeached.

It is unclear how long this will take, however. Ramaphosa has pledged to seek a judicial review of the report’s contents, which, in turn, could delay the investigation of the impeachment committee.

What is the process for impeachment?

If a president is found to have violated the constitution or the law, or is unable to perform the duties of office, South Africa’s National Assembly has the constitutional authority to remove him or her.

Beyond the parliamentary investigation that will now begin into the Farmgate scandal, and which can trigger a vote on impeachment, as well, any member of parliament may introduce a motion seeking the president’s removal. The speaker of the National Assembly would then refer the motion to an independent panel of legal experts to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to proceed.

If this panel decides there is a case against the president, lawmakers must vote on whether to begin impeachment proceedings. After this, a specially constituted impeachment committee is established to carry out a detailed investigation into the allegations. This is separate from the investigation beginning now and could take several months.

Once that committee recommends the removal of the president, parliament holds a final vote to impeach the president. Under Section 89 of the constitution, a two-thirds majority is required – meaning at least 267 lawmakers must vote in favour of removal in the 400-seat National Assembly.

Are there other ways to remove Ramaphosa?

Yes, the South African president can be removed from his job via a no-confidence vote in parliament.

Any member of the assembly can propose the no-confidence motion, and it only requires a simple majority of more than 50 percent.

Ramaphosa would need support from coalition partners to survive a no-confidence vote, however. This has already been proposed by at least two opposition parties in parliament.

Another way could be if his ANC party turns against him, as it did with the last president, Zuma, who came in for years of corruption allegations and was finally forced to resign in 2018.

How strong is Ramaphosa’s position?

Ramaphosa is not only the president of South Africa, but also the leader of its most popular party, the ANC. Nelson Mandela was the ANC’s first Black president after apartheid ended in 1994.

In 2024, the ANC stunningly lost its majority in parliament for the first time following more than three decades in power. Today, the ANC holds 159 of 400 seats in the national assembly, or about 40 percent of seats – and Ramaphosa is governing in a coalition with the Democratic Alliance, which has 87 seats, along with other smaller parties.

But Chris Ogunmodede, an independent analyst of African politics, security, and international affairs, based in Lagos, Nigeria, said Ramaphosa would likely survive any impeachment attempts, “simply because of the arithmetic”.

“His numbers in the parliament virtually guarantee that impeachment will not happen,” Ogunmodede told Al Jazeera.

“It hasn’t been easy, but there is a government that seems to be functional and is showing some signs of reinvigoration,” Ogunmodede added. “There’s a lot of uncertainty on the part of the other coalition parties that suggests that they would much rather be on the side of caution and go with the devil they know, and preserve the government by keeping Ramaphosa in power.”

Despite this, the cash-in-sofa scandal has been damaging, he said.

And, under Ramaphosa, the ANC’s popularity has continued to slide. The party’s national vote share fell from 57.5 percent in the 2019 election to 40.2 percent in the 2024 election, marking its worst performance since the end of apartheid.

The South African economy has shown some signs of improvement, however, and given the Ramaphosa government “something to show for the time that it’s been in power”, said Ogunmodede.

Yet the South African government still faces long-term structural concerns about the economy, the country’s institutions, corruption, crime and other issues, the analyst added.

On the back of underlying anti-incumbency, Ogunmodede said the top court’s ruling on the cash-in-sofa scandal “has resurrected many concerns that South Africans have had about the president and his party, and the political institutions of the country more broadly”.

In a United States court, OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman has rejected claims from fellow tech mogul Elon Musk that he betrayed the artificial intelligence company’s original vision.

Tuesday marked the start of Altman’s testimony in a contentious trial unfolding in Oakland, California, between some of tech’s richest and most powerful titans.

Musk, the wealthiest man in the world, has sued Altman and OpenAI president Greg Brockman on the basis that they “stole a charity” by shifting its purpose.

He alleged that OpenAI’s leader persuaded him to invest $38bn, based on a goal of improving humanity, only to see the company pivot to a for-profit venture in 2019.

On the witness stand on Tuesday, Altman instead framed Musk as a competitor obsessed with exercising control over OpenAI.

“It does not fit with my conception of the words ‘stealing a charity’ to look at what has actually happened here,” Altman told the court.

The two men have long had an acrimonious relationship, driven in part by differing views about artificial intelligence.

Musk — a self-described free speech “absolutist” — currently runs his own AI chatbot, Grok, which has been accused of perpetuating right-wing conspiracy theories and offensive materials.

He is seeking $150bn in damages from OpenAI and Microsoft, one of its principal investors.

Altman’s testimony comes more than two weeks into the trial, which has seen him and Musk square off against each other.

In his testimony, Altman argued that Musk knew of the plans to develop OpenAI into a for-profit enterprise when he invested, and he asserted that Musk even petitioned to have a majority stake in the company.

“An early number that Mr Musk threw out was that he should have 90 percent of the equity to start,” Altman told the jury. “It then softened, but it always was a majority.”

The outcome of the trial could determine the future of OpenAI, its leadership, and products like ChatGPT. As part of his lawsuit, Musk is pushing for the removal of Altman and Brockman.

The trial comes as OpenAI prepares for a potential initial public offering that could see it valued at $1 trillion, a historically large sum.

During earlier testimony, Musk portrayed Altman as a liar who could not be trusted with the development of the technology.

“If you have someone who is not trustworthy in charge of AI, I think that’s a very big danger for the whole world,” Musk said.

Musk’s lawyer, Steven Molo, also sought to undermine Altman’s reliability during questioning on Tuesday.

“Have you misled people when you do business?” Molo asked Altman.

“I do not think so,” Altman replied.

Altman, meanwhile, sought to cast doubt on Musk’s leadership; Musk ultimately left OpenAI’s board in 2018 to pursue his own AI development.

“I don’t think Mr Musk understood how to run a good research lab,” Altman said. “He had demotivated some of our most key researchers.”

The US public, for its part, has been largely unconvinced by high-minded rhetoric about the transformative potential of AI.

A March 2026 poll by the Pew Research Center suggested that a majority of respondents in the US believe AI will worsen, rather than improve, the ability to think creatively, form meaningful relationships, make difficult decisions, and solve problems.

Just 10 percent of respondents said they were more excited than concerned about the increased use of AI in daily life.

But the industry has been quick to translate its substantial economic power into political influence as lawmakers consider how best to regulate the technology.

The use of AI has emerged as an election-season issue as the US midterms approach in November, and the administration of President Donald Trump has proposed a “national policy framework” for the technology to avoid a patchwork of state regulations.

The AI industry has become a driver of eye-watering investment in recent years, with the United Nations estimating that the global market could be worth $4.8 trillion by 2033.

POP star Dua Lipa is suing Samsung for £11million after the tech giant allegedly used her face to sell £300 televisions without her permission.

A picture of the Levitating singer was on the packaging of Crystal 43in ultra-high- definition sets to promote its XITE Hits music channel.

In legal paperwork obtained by The Sun, Dua’s attorneys say she owns the copyright to the photo — taken backstage at a 2024 festival.

She claims it appeared on a “significant portion” of the tellies sold in the US — and her fans even flocked to buy them in the belief she had endorsed them.

The filing, made in the Central District of California Federal Court, reveals that Grammy- winner Dua is demanding a minimum $15million (£11million) in damages — but a jury could decide to award far more.

South Korean firm Samsung is said to have ignored several legal warnings from her team.

DOUBLE TAKE

Why Callum Turner hid Dua Lipa lookalike ex he was WITH the night he met star

LIPA SERVICE

How Dua Lipa is bizarrely key to Fury vs Joshua fighting at Wembley

Her lawyer Christine Lepera wrote: “Samsung used a copyrighted image of Ms. Lipa without authority or licence and prominently featured it on the front of boxes containing Samsung-manufactured televisions for retail sale.”

She added “The substantial revenue made on the sale is inextricably tied to the false message conveyed to consumers that Ms. Lipa has endorsed the Infringing Products when she has not.”

One fan is said to have put a photo of the box online with the caption: “I wasn’t even planning on buying a TV, but I saw the box so I decided to get it.”

Another in Miami who spotted it in a store wrote on Instagram: “I’d get that TV just because Dua is on it. That’s how obsessed I am.”

A third said: “I’ve always said if you need anything selling, just put a picture of Dua Lipa on it.”

Ms Lepera added that Dua would not have agreed a Samsung deal anyway as she is “highly selective in her commercial partnerships”.

The London-born star, 30, is one of the world’s biggest pop stars, cracking America and winning three Grammy Awards.

She has signed a number of advertising deals to take her net worth in excess of £100million.

Dua is the face of Nespresso, alongside George Clooney, and also the frontwoman for Yves Saint-Laurent’s beauty products.

In 2023, she signed a seven- figure package to become the face of sports car brand Porsche, and she is in a multi-year partnership with sportswear giant Puma.

Samsung had yet to file a defence to the court. Both Samsung and Dua Lipa’s legal firm, MSK, were asked to comment.

Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes suspends use of law to reduce prison sentences, pending further review.

Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes has barred the implementation of a law that could dramatically reduce the prison sentence of former President Jair Bolsonaro for involvement in a coup plot after his loss in the 2022 election.

De Moraes ordered the law’s suspension on Saturday until the Supreme Court can convene a full hearing to consider appeals challenging its constitutionality.

Bolsonaro’s conviction for involvement in a plot to remain in office after losing to left-wing rival Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva in 2022 has become a cause celebre for the country’s political right, which has pushed for Bolsonaro’s release from prison.

The Supreme Court sentenced the former far-right president to 27 years in prison in September, but a law passed by Brazil’s conservative-majority Congress in December would apply to Bolsonaro and others convicted in the plot, paving the way for reductions in their sentences.

President Lula vetoed the bill in January, but a vote led by Bolsonaro’s allies in Congress overrode the veto in late April.

Plaintiffs have subsequently asked the Supreme Court to overturn the bill, stating it is unconstitutional.

Lawyers for those convicted must file individual requests for sentence reduction. The ruling by de Moraes essentially suspends such requests until the court has had the opportunity to decide on the law’s constitutionality.

Lawyers for the 71-year-old Bolsonaro filed a new appeal to the Supreme Court on Friday, asking it to overturn what they called a “miscarriage of justice”.

Bolsonaro’s conviction and sentencing remain a matter of controversy in Brazil, where his allies have decried it as a political witch-hunt.

Opponents have welcomed it as a necessary form of accountability, from which not even former presidents are exempt.

MONTGOMERY, Ala. — A national redistricting battle over U.S. House seats swung toward Republicans on Friday, as a Virginia court invalidated a Democratic gerrymandering effort and Republicans in Alabama approved plans for new primary elections if courts allow GOP-drawn House districts to be used in the November midterm elections.

The Alabama legislation, which was signed quickly into law by Republican Gov. Kay Ivey, is part of an effort by Republicans in Southern states to capitalize quickly on a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that significantly weakened Voting Rights Act protections for minorities.

Tensions ran high in the Alabama Statehouse. And Republican lawmakers in Louisiana and South Carolina also faced staunch opposition from civil rights activists and Democrats as they presented plans Friday to redraw their congressional districts.

The action came just a day after Tennessee enacted new congressional districts that carve up a Democratic-held, Black-majority district in Memphis. The state Democratic Party sued on Friday, seeking to prevent the districts from being used until after this year’s elections because of the tight time frame

Even before last week’s Supreme Court ruling in a Louisiana case, Republicans and Democrats already were engaged in a fierce redistricting battle, each seeking an edge in the midterm elections that will determine control of the closely divided House. That battle tilted further toward Republicans when the Virginia Supreme Court ruled Friday that Democratic lawmakers had violated constitutional requirements when placing a redistricting amendment on the ballot.

Since President Trump prodded Texas to redraw its congressional districts last summer, Republicans think they could gain as many as 14 seats from new districts in several states while Democrats think they could gain up to six seats. But the parties may not get everything they sought, because the gerrymandering could backfire in some highly competitive districts.

Alabama primaries could be in flux

Demonstrators outside the Alabama Statehouse on Friday shouted “fight for democracy” and “down with white supremacy.”

“I was out there in 1965 marching for the right to vote, and now we are back here in 2026 doing the same thing,” Betty White Boynton said.

During debate inside the statehouse, Black lawmakers sharply criticized the Republican legislation, saying it harks back to the state’s shameful Jim Crow history. The new law would ignore the May 19 primary results for some congressional seats and direct the governor to schedule a new primary under revised districts, if a court allows it. Lawmakers also approved a similar bill related to state Senate districts.

“What happened here today is that we were set back as a people to the days of Reconstruction,” Democratic state Sen. Rodger Smitherman said after the vote.

Senate Democrats shouted “hell no” and “stop the steal” as the vote occurred in the Alabama Senate.

The special primary would happen only if the courts agree to lift an injunction that put a court-selected map in place until after the 2030 census. That order required a second district where Black voters are the majority or close to it, resulting in the 2024 election of Democratic Rep. Shomari Figures, who is Black. If a court lifts the injunction, Republican officials want to put in place a map lawmakers drew in 2023 — which was rejected by a federal court — that could allow them to reclaim Figures’ district.

“With this special session successfully behind us, Alabama now stands ready to quickly act, should the courts issue favorable rulings in our ongoing redistricting cases,” Ivey said in a statement.

Virginia ruling centered on timing of election

Democrats had hoped to gain as many as four additional U.S. House seats under new districts narrowly approved by voters in April. But the state Supreme Court invalidated the measure because it said the Democratic-led legislature violated procedural requirements.

To place a constitutional amendment before voters, the Virginia Constitution requires lawmakers to approve it in two separate legislative sessions, with a state election sandwiched in between. The legislature’s initial approval of the redistricting amendment occurred last October — while early voting was underway but before it concluded on the day of the general election. The legislature’s second vote on the amendment occurred after a new legislative session began in January.

The Supreme Court said the initial legislative approval came too late, noting that more than 1.3 million ballots already had been cast in the general election, about 40% of the total votes ultimately cast.

Louisiana lawmakers look at map options

A Louisiana Senate committee considered several redistricting options Friday from Republican state Sen. John “Jay” Morris that would eliminate either both or one of the current Black-majority U.S. House districts.

“Every one of these maps reduces Black voting power in every one of the districts. And I think that’s a problem,” Democratic state Sen. Sam Jenkins told Morris.

Morris denied that the proposed redistricting maps were racially discriminatory. He said his goal was to be “respectful of the traditional boundaries” of the state’s six congressional districts.

“I don’t think we should care that much about race,” Morris said.

The only four Black congressmen who have represented Louisiana since the end of the Reconstruction era appealed to state senators to keep two majority-Black districts in a state where one-third of voters are Black.

Leona Tate, who as a 6-year-old girl was escorted by federal marshals through a racist white mob trying to prevent her from desegregating a New Orleans elementary school, told lawmakers she felt they were taking a step backward in time by reducing Black political power.

“You have a choice in front of you: You can draw a map that reflects what Louisiana actually is — a state where Black voices belong in the halls of Congress,” said Tate, 71. “Or you can draw a map that tells my grandchildren that their votes don’t count, that their faces don’t matter and that the progress I helped build with my own two feet as a 6-year-old can be erased at will.”

South Carolina considers a House map

A small group of South Carolina lawmakers held a rare Friday meeting to discuss a proposed new congressional map intended to allow Republicans a clean sweep of the state’s seven U.S. House seats.

The hearing was the first step in redistricting. But its future remains murky. The state Senate has yet to agree to consider new districts later this month, an action that would require a two-thirds vote.

The new map has some Republicans nervous. Breaking up the 6th District, represented by Rep. James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), makes the other six districts less Republican.

At Friday’s subcommittee meeting, lawmakers heard hours of testimony, almost all against the new map. The hearing included a consultant who reviewed the map, saying it appeared to be legal under the Supreme Court’s decision in the Louisiana case.

“I agree if the law allows us to do it, then we can do it,” Democratic state Rep. Justin Bamberg said. “But I can slap somebody’s mama and it’s not the right thing to do.”

Some absentee ballots already have been returned for the state’s June 9 primary elections. The legislative subcommittee advanced a plan to delay the congressional primaries to August and reopen a candidate filing period, if a new map is approved.

Chandler, Brook, Collins and Lieb write for the Associated Press. Collins reported from Columbia, S.C.; Brook from Baton Rouge, La.; and Lieb from Jefferson City, Mo.

A CLEANER accused of supplying Liam Payne with drugs before his death could be let off with community service and a rehab course after reportedly striking a plea deal.

Ezequiel David Pereyra, who worked at the Argentina hotel where the ex-One Direction star died, might not face trial and his sentence could be cut from a possible 15 years to a suspended term.

Last night sources said Pereyra was “over the moon”.

The sources also claimed waiter Braian Nahuel Paiz, who is also accused of supplying cocaine to the star, has been offered the same deal. However it is understood that Paiz, 25, will not be accepting the deal.

It came as Liam’s girlfriend, Kate Cassidy, posted a heartbreaking video of her last day with the singer, showing them riding horses together.

A source said: “This will be terribly upsetting for Liam’s  loved ones to hear — as there is now the possibility that there will never be a trial and they will never get answers as to what happened that night.

MAGIC MOMENT

Cheryl gives rare glimpse of son Bear, 9, at Disney after ex Liam’s death

TO THE STARS

Liam Payne’s name blasted to moon in sweet gesture to late space-loving singer

“No one will be held accountable for his death.”

Pereyra, 22, was awaiting trial for allegedly selling cocaine to Liam, 31, before he fell to his death from his hotel balcony in Buenos Aires in October 2024.

He was facing a hefty jail sentence if found guilty.

But his new lawyer, Augusto Maria Cassiau, is said to have struck a deal  with prosecutors to lessen his charge if he admitted his role in the incident.

His new charge will be “facilitation for personal consumption, non-profit” —  admitting he gave the drugs to Liam when he died but he was not a dealer.

Pereyra has been offered a two-year suspended sentence, with time already served in custody awaiting trial being  taken into consideration.

He will have to  perform community service and complete a drug awareness course. 

Pereyra  was released from jail and put under house arrest in December after an appeal court agreed he had  family support, a fixed address and no criminal record.

Last month Paiz, who was also released from prison in December, had his house arrest conditions scrapped.

No new evidence has appeared in the case file and prosecutors have been unable to  secure a trial date.

In October, on the first anniversary of Liam’s death, Pereyra exclusively spoke to The Sun, offering his condolences to Liam’s family.

He also claimed bosses at the CasaSur Palermo Hotel ignored Liam’s drug use.

In a TikTok video posted on Wednesday, the same day prosecutors offered a plea deal, Kate, 27, can be seen riding horses with Liam.

She wrote: “Enjoy each moment life brings you.

“Because I didn’t know this would be the last time I’d ever see my boyfriend again in this lifetime.”

Liam had flown to Argentina with Kate   to see his former 1D bandmate Niall Horan in concert.

Liam extended the trip but Kate returned to the US.

An autopsy confirmed he died from multiple trauma and internal and external bleeding.

In a 3-0 ruling, court says Trump administration misread a decades-old immigration law to justify mandatory detention.

A United States federal appeals court has rejected the Trump administration’s practice of subjecting most people arrested in its immigration crackdown to mandatory detention without the opportunity to seek release on bond.

In a 3-0 ruling on Tuesday, a panel of the New York-based US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said the administration relied on a novel but incorrect interpretation of a decades-old immigration law to justify the policy.

Writing for the panel, US Circuit Judge Joseph F Bianco, a Trump appointee, warned that the government’s reading “would send a seismic shock through our immigration detention system and society”, straining already overcrowded facilities, separating families and disrupting communities.

Lawyers for the Trump administration say the mandatory detention policy is legal under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, passed in 1996.

But Bianco said the government had made “an attempt to muddy” the law’s “textually clear waters”, arguing that the administration’s interpretation “defies the statute’s context, structure, history, and purpose” and contradicts “longstanding executive branch practice”.

Under the Trump administration policy, the Department of Homeland Security last year took the position that non-citizens already living in the US, not just those arriving at the border, qualify as “applicants for admission” and are subject to mandatory detention.

Under federal immigration law, “applicants for admission” to the US are detained while their cases proceed in immigration courts and are ineligible for bond hearings.

The Department of Homeland Security has been denying bond hearings to immigrants arrested across the country, including those who have been living in the US for years without any criminal history, the Associated Press (AP) news agency reports.

That is a departure from the practice under previous US administrations, when most non-citizens with no criminal record who were arrested away from the border were given the opportunity to request a bond while their cases moved through immigration court, according to AP.

In such cases, bonds were often granted to people who were deemed not to be flight risks, and mandatory detention was limited to those who had just entered the country.

Amy Belsher, director of immigrants rights’ litigation at the New York Civil Liberties Union, said the appeals court ruling affirmed “that the Trump administration’s policy of detaining immigrants without any process is unlawful and cannot stand”.

“The government cannot mandatorily detain millions of noncitizens, many of whom have lived here for decades, without an opportunity to seek release. It defies the Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and basic human decency,” Belsher said in a statement.

Conflicting rulings set stage for Supreme Court review

The New York court’s decision comes after two other appeals courts ruled in favour of the Trump administration’s policy.

Acknowledging the opposing rulings, Judge Bianco said the panel was parting ways with them and instead aligning with more than 370 lower-court judges nationwide who have rejected the administration’s position as a misreading of the law.

The split among the courts increases the likelihood that the US Supreme Court will weigh in.

The latest ruling also upheld an order by a New York judge that led to the release of Brazilian national Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha, who was arrested by immigration officials last year while driving to work after living in the US for more than 20 years.

“The court was right to conclude the Trump administration can’t just ⁠reinterpret the law at its own whim,” Michael Tan, a lawyer for Barbosa at the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement.

The Department of Justice, which is defending the mandatory detention policy in court, did not respond to a request for comment.

The trial’s outcome could sway the balance of power in AI, and jury selection starts on Monday.

Technology tycoons Elon Musk and Sam Altman are poised to face off in a high-stakes trial revolving around the alleged betrayal, deceit and unbridled ambition that blurred the bickering billionaires’ once-shared vision for the development of artificial intelligence.

The trial, which is scheduled to begin on Monday with jury selection, centres on the 2015 birth of ChatGPT maker OpenAI as a nonprofit start-up primarily funded by Musk before evolving into a capitalistic venture now valued at $852bn.

The trial’s outcome could sway the balance of power in AI, breakthrough technology that is increasingly being feared as a potential job killer and an existential threat to humanity’s survival.

Those perceived risks are among the reasons that Musk, the world’s richest person, has cited for filing a lawsuit in August 2024 that will now be decided by a jury and US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California.

The civil lawsuit accuses Altman, OpenAI’s CEO, and his top lieutenant and a cofounder, Greg Brockman, of double-crossing Musk by straying from the San Francisco company’s founding mission to be an altruistic steward of a revolutionary technology. The lawsuit alleges they shifted OpenAI into moneymaking mode behind his back.

The bitter legal fight may come down to a few pages in one executive’s personal diary.

“This is the only chance we have to get out from Elon,” wrote Brockman in the autumn of 2017. “Is he the ‘glorious leader’ that I would pick?”

Brockman’s diary entry is part of the thousands of pages of internal documents revealed in court.

Musk said the defendants kept him in the dark about their plans, exploited his name and financial support to create a “wealth machine” for themselves, and owe damages for having conned him and the public.

He also wants OpenAI to revert to a nonprofit, for Altman and Brockman to be removed as officers and for Altman to be removed from its board.

OpenAI has brushed off Musk’s allegations as an unfounded case of sour grapes that’s aimed at undercutting its rapid growth and bolstering Musk’s own xAI, which he launched in 2023 as a competitor.

The trial also carries risks for Musk, who last month was held liable by another jury for defrauding investors during his $44bn takeover of Twitter in 2022. Any damaging details about Musk and his business tactics could be particularly hurtful now because his rocket ship maker, SpaceX, plans to go public this summer in an initial public offering that could make him the world’s first trillionaire.

Lawyers say El Gamal family detained by Trump administration hours after returning home from 10-month detention.

A United States federal court has blocked the administration of United States President Donald Trump from deporting a woman and her five children following their release from immigration detention.

Hayam El Gamal and her five children, ranging in age from five to 18 years old, had been held for 10 months prior to their release earlier this week following a judge’s order. They had been held in detention for the longest of any known family during Trump’s second term in office,

But just days after returning to their home in Colorado, immigration authorities again detained the family on Saturday and sought to swiftly deport them, according to their lawyer.

“The Trump administration has kidnapped the El Gamal family in violation of a federal court order from the Western District of Texas, which ordered them Thursday not to detain or remove the family from the United States,” a statement from the family lawyers, shared by lawyer Eric Lee, said.

“The attempt to remove the El Gamal family is in violation of a federal court order and must be halted immediately,” it adds.

Lee said shortly after that US District Judge Fred Biery, who ordered the family’s initial release on Thursday, had granted an emergency order on Saturday barring their removal.

The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

The Trump administration has at times flouted court orders barring it from deporting people from the US, pushing a hardline approach that critics say has defied legal constraints.

That has come amid a wider campaign to restrict immigration, legal and illegal, particularly from non-Western countries.

Hayam El Gamal and her children were detained by the Trump administration after her former husband, Mohamed Sabry Soliman, attacked a group of people in Boulder, Colorado, as they gathered in support of Israeli captives held by the Palestinian armed group Hamas in June 2025.

An 82-year-old woman later died from injuries sustained during the incident.

Soliman’s family condemned the attack and denied any knowledge that it was going to take place, with NBC News reporting that El Gamal divorced her husband soon after his arrest.

An FBI agent also testified under oath that there was no evidence that the family, who have not been charged with any crimes, was aware of the father’s plan.

Their nearly yearlong detention by the Trump administration has been described by the family’s lawyers and several lawmakers as an illegal and cruel effort to punish the family for an act they did not commit.

Following Soliman’s arrest, the White House, in a post on X, said it would seek to immediately expel the family, whose lawyers have said are in the process of applying for asylum after coming to the US on tourist visas from Egypt.

“Six One-Way Tickets for Mohamed’s Wife and Five Kids. Final Boarding Call Coming Soon,” the White House post said.

The family has experienced deteriorating health and been denied proper medical care while in detention, according to their lawyers. Earlier in April, El Gamal was hospitalised due to a medical emergency related to an untreated growth on her chest, they said.

Immigration rights groups have noted that it is typically illegal to detain children for extended periods of time.

In a statement earlier this week, US Senator Dick Durbin, a Democrat, said the Trump administration’s motives would be clear if they sought to re-detain the family despite the judge’s order to release them.

“If, despite the judge’s recommendation, the Department of Homeland Security still objects to the release of an innocent woman and her five children, we know exactly why that is the case,” Durbin said.

“It is not because they present any danger to the community or a flight risk. It is because they are immigrants – Arab Muslim immigrants at that.”

Defence lawyers had asked for case to be thrown out, claiming Maduro’s rights were violated following US abduction.

The United States has agreed to ease certain sanctions on Venezuela in order to allow the country’s government to cover the legal fees for ex-president Nicolas Maduro, who is on federal trial in New York City for drug trafficking charges after being abducted by US forces in January.

Maduro’s lawyer, Barry Pollack, had asked the Manhattan-based US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein to toss out the case in February, arguing that a prohibition on the government in Caracas paying the legal fees constituted a violation of Maduro’s legal right to the counsel of his choice.

In a court filing, US Department of Justice lawyers agreed to modify US sanctions so that the Venezuelan government could pay Maduro’s defence lawyer. They said the change makes the defence’s motion to throw out the case “moot”.

The pivot is the latest update in a closely watched trial that has raised a series of legal questions based on Maduro’s status as a former head of state and how he was taken into US custody.

Critics have condemned the proceedings as fundamentally illegitimate, pointing to the extraordinary US military operation to abduct Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, from Venezuela. Legal experts have called the raid a blatant violation of international law.

The Trump administration has maintained that the abduction was a law enforcement operation supported by the military. It has argued that Washington does not recognise Maduro as the legitimate leader of Venezuela following several contested elections.

Under the international law concept of “head of state immunity”, sitting world leaders are typically granted immunity from foreign national courts.

After being spirited to the US, Maduro and Flores pleaded not guilty and remain jailed in Brooklyn, New York. Maduro has rejected the US charges as a false pretext for seizing control of the South American country’s natural resources.

US President Donald Trump has repeatedly expressed his desire for foreign companies to access Venezuela’s vast oil reserves.

During a hearing on March 26, Judge Hellerstein did not signal that he would throw out the trial, but did question whether the sanctions preventing the Venezuelan government from covering Maduro’s legal fees were a violation of constitutional rights.

All criminal defendants in the US have constitutional rights, regardless of whether or not they are US citizens.

Prosecutors, at the time, argued that the sanctions were based on national security interests and asserted that the executive branch, rather than the judiciary, oversees foreign policy.

They further argued that Maduro and Flores could use personal funds to pay for a lawyer of their choice.

“The defendant is here, Flores is here. They present no further national security threat,” said Hellerstein.

“The right that’s implicated, paramount over other rights, is the right to constitutional counsel.”

RUSSELL Brand has confessed he thinks about going to prison “every day” ahead of his rape trial and denies being a “grifter”.

The comedian and actor, 50, who now hosts a podcast is facing trial on three counts of rape, three of sexual assault and one of indecent assault against six women from 1999 to 2009.

He denies all the charges against him.

The star, who wore a crucifix around his neck, talked at length with Piers Morgan on his YouTube show Uncensored.

Asked if he thought about the reality of going to jail if he was found guilty, Brand said: “Yes… all the time, every day.”

He added: “I will be with God wherever I am. And of course, I would prefer to be with God with my wife and my kids… I’m not saying that that’s not a difficult image, you know, and a difficult thing to contemplate, of course it is.”

RING IT ON

Harry Styles and Zoe Kravitz ‘are engaged’ after eight-month romance

Snub rumours

Paris Fury reveals the REAL reason Molly-Mae wasn’t at Venezuela’s hen do

Brand, who brought a Bible with him, continued: “We are going to find out the truth, and we’re going to deal with the truth.

“Because actually, I am not afraid of the truth and if the truth is I am going to prison, then I am. My job will be, do not be afraid of that truth, that is what you are going to do.”

The one-time Hollywood star claimed he would face being behind bars “with God” if he was found guilty of the charges against him.

He also strenuously defended his innocence.

Morgan put it to him that there were people who considered him “basically just a massive grifter”.

Brand immediately shot back: “No, that’s what they say about you.”

Morgan added: “You’re very eloquent, you can be very persuasive with the power of your words, but that actually when it comes to any of these issues, you don’t really have a personal principle.”

Brand said: “I do, I do.”

In an earlier interview for The Megyn Kelly Show podcast admitted he had sex with a 16-year-old when he was 30.

He said his relationships at the time were “exploitative” – but stressed his sex with the girl was legal.

Brand said: “In Europe and in the United Kingdom where I’m from, the age of consent is 16. And I did sleep with a 16-year-old when I was 30.

“But when I was 30, I was a very different person. I was a lot younger and I was an immature 30-year-old.”

Brand told host Megyn Kelly his relationships in the past were “selfish”.

He continued: “I did not apply enough consideration barely any I suppose really to how that sex was affecting other people.”

At the height of his fame, the actor starred in a number of Hollywood films, including Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Get Him to the Greek.

His trial at Southwark Crown Court is due to start on October 12.

Judges say Trump’s order for swift removal at the border ‘cast aside federal laws affording’ right to seek asylum.

An appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump’s ban on asylum applications in the United States is unlawful, dealing a setback to the administration’s immigration crackdown.

In a decision released on Friday, a three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals in Washington, DC, found that existing laws — namely the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) — give people the right to apply for asylum at the border.

Trump had issued the asylum ban in a proclamation on January 20, 2025, on the first day of his second term.

But the appeals court questioned whether suspending asylum unilaterally was within the president’s power.

“Congress did not intend to grant the Executive the expansive removal authority it asserts,” the ruling said.

“The Proclamation and Guidance are thus unlawful to the extent that they circumvent the INA’s removal procedures and cast aside federal laws affording individuals the right to apply and be considered for asylum or withholding of removal protections.”

The decision validated a ruling by a lower court. While the judges blocked Trump’s order, it is unclear what its immediate impact will be. Already, the White House has signalled it plans to appeal.

Trump made immigration a major pillar of his 2024 re-election campaign, pledging to repel what he describes as an “invasion” of migrants by shutting down the southern border of the US.

Asylum in the US can be granted to people facing “persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group”. Such protections have been recognised as a fundamental human right under international law.

But unauthorised border crossings reached record levels during the administration of President Joe Biden, which had itself imposed asylum restrictions.

Millions of migrants — many suffering from gang violence and political persecution in Central and South America — have claimed asylum upon reaching the US.

Nearly 945,000 filed for asylum in 2023, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

In his January 2025 decree, Trump suspended “the physical entry of aliens involved in an invasion into the United States across the southern border”.

The proclamation was quickly challenged in court, as other measures in Trump’s immigration crackdown have been.

But the appeals court panel concluded that the INA does not authorise the president to remove the plaintiffs under “procedures of his own making”.

Nor does it allow him to suspend the plaintiffs’ right to apply for asylum or curtail procedures for adjudicating claims of torture and persecution.

“The power by proclamation to temporarily suspend the entry of specified foreign individuals into the United States does not contain implicit authority to override the INA’s mandatory process to summarily remove foreign individuals,” wrote Judge J Michelle Childs, a Biden appointee.

The Trump administration will likely appeal the ruling to the full appellate court and subsequently to the Supreme Court.

The White House stressed after the court’s decision that banning asylum is part of Trump’s constitutional powers as commander-in-chief.

“We have liberal judges across the country who are acting against this president for political purposes. They are not acting as true litigators of the law. They are looking at these cases from a political lens,” White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters.