hears

CHICAGO — A judge heard testimony Tuesday about overflowing toilets, crowded cells, no beds and water that “tasted like sewer” at a Chicago-area building that serves as a key detention spot for people rounded up in the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

Three people who were held at the building in Broadview, just outside Chicago, offered rare public accounts about the conditions there as U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman considers ordering changes at a site that has become a flashpoint for protests and confrontations with federal agents.

“I don’t want anyone else to live what I lived through,” said Felipe Agustin Zamacona, 47, an Amazon driver and Mexican immigrant who has lived in the U.S. for decades.

Zamacona said there were 150 people in a holding cell. Desperate to lie down to sleep, he said he once took the spot of another man who got up to use the toilet.

And the water? Zamacona said he tried to drink from a sink but it “tasted like sewer.”

A lawsuit filed last week accuses the government of denying proper access to food, water and medical care, and coercing people to sign documents they don’t understand. Without that knowledge, and without private communication with lawyers, they have unknowingly relinquished their rights and faced deportation, the lawsuit alleges.

“This is not an issue of not getting a toilet or a Fiji water bottle,” attorney Alexa Van Brunt of the MacArthur Justice Center told the judge. “These are a set of dire conditions that when taken together paint a harrowing picture.”

Before testimony began, U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman said the allegations were “disgusting.”

“To have to sleep on a floor next to an overflowing toilet — that’s obviously unconstitutional,” he said.

Attorney Jana Brady of the Justice Department acknowledged there are no beds at the Broadview building, just outside Chicago, because it was not intended to be a long-term detention site.

Authorities have “improved the operations” over the past few months, she said, adding there has been a “learning curve.”

“The conditions are not sufficiently serious,” Brady told the judge.

The building has been managed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for decades. But amid the Chicago-area crackdown, it has been used to process people for detention or deportation.

Greg Bovino, the Border Patrol commander who has led the Chicago immigration operation, said criticism was unfounded.

“I think they’re doing a great job out there,” he told the Associated Press during an interview this week.

Testifying with the help of a translator, Pablo Moreno Gonzalez, 56, said he was arrested last week while waiting to start work. Like Zamacona, he said he was placed in a cell with 150 other people, with no beds, blankets, toothbrush or toothpaste.

“It was just really bad. … It was just too much,” Moreno Gonzalez, crying, told the judge.

A third person, Claudia Carolina Pereira Guevara, testified from Honduras, separated from two children who remain in the U.S. She said she was held at Broadview for five days in October and recalled using a garbage bag to clear a clogged toilet.

“They gave us nothing that had to do with cleaning. Absolutely nothing,” Guevara said.

For months advocates have raised concerns about conditions at Broadview, which has drawn scrutiny from members of Congress, political candidates and activist groups. Lawyers and relatives of people held there have called it a de facto detention center, saying up to 200 people have been held at a time without access to legal counsel.

The Broadview center has also drawn demonstrations, leading to the arrests of numerous protesters. The demonstrations are at the center of a separate lawsuit from a coalition of news outlets and protesters who claim federal agents violated their First Amendment rights by repeatedly using tear gas and other weapons on them.

Fernando writes for the Associated Press. AP reporters Sophia Tareen in Chicago and Ed White in Detroit contributed to this report.

A BBC radio presenter who was sacked for his inappropriate radio segments says he thought he was acting within the guidelines.

Jack Murley, from Bodmin, was employed by BBC Radio Cornwall, in Truro, from 2019 until he was taken off air by the broadcaster in 2023.

2

2

His dismissal came after a “heated conversation” with his boss over his social media use.

The presenter was taken off air despite believing he was “acting within the BBC’s social media guidelines”, a tribunal heard.

Since 2022 Mr Murley had offered his views on social media about the BBC’s Local Value For All project, questions were also raised about one of his radio features.

Mr Murley’s Loosest Goose segment, a satirical show that included innuendo, was described at the disciplinary hearing as being “deeply inappropriate” and “well beyond innuendo.”

One of the beebs senior news editors told the tribunal it had been a “clear and straightforward decision” to consider the case as “gross misconduct.”

At the hearing in Exeter Mr Murley explained he would have been willing to make changes or even “undertake training” to keep his job.

He said if concerns were raised with him he would have acted to address them.

The former presenter is now seeking a whopping £48,000 in compensation.

The corporation said they removed the presenter from the airwaves because of the “heated conversation” he had with his manager.

According to Mr Murley the row stemmed from his social media use, which the firm took issue with.

A senior news editor at BBC Wales was the hearing manager for the disciplinary proceedings brought against Mr Murley.

The senior news editor said social media posts were viewed in the same light as a broadcast.

Speaking at the tribunal he would go on to say Mr Murley: “Should have had the knowledge and experience to be compliant with the guidelines.”

Mr Murley’s disciplinary hearing went to appeal and the hearing manager director of BBC Northern Ireland, Adam Smyth, upheld the decision.

Smyth said the corporation has to “be sure that our presenters are trustworthy.”

Mr Murley is said to have claimed he had several examples of managers endorsing his innuendo in his Loosest Goose radio feature.

He questioned how he was supposed to know that the show breached guidelines given that his seniors endorsed it.

The former presenter explained at the hearing: “I thought I was in the right.”

He added: “I think there was a way back, I wanted to stay at the BBC, I loved the BBC.”

The tribunal continues.

BBC News’ Biggest Blunders

The Beeb has suffered a number of gaffes recently, here we take a look at the biggest, and funniest, mishaps to date:

The US Supreme Court have been presented with arguments in a case attempting to overturn Colorado’s conversion therapy ban for minors.

Back in June 2019, Colorado became the 18th state to prohibit the harmful and discredited practice from being used with its

So-called conversion therapy refers to any attempt at changing a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity and can often involve cruel and dangerous methods such as electroshock therapy, nausea-causing drugs, verbal and physical abuse, food deprivation, and forced prayer.

While it has been widely condemned by health experts and scientific bodies worldwide, the US Supreme Court has recently considered the possibility of overturning Colorado’s ban on the harmful practice —a move that could roll back similar laws in other states.

On 7 October, the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, heard oral arguments regarding the Chiles v. Salazar case – which stemmed from Christian therapist Kaley Chiles’ lawsuit against the state of Colorado.  

In her petition, the licensed professional counsellor, who is represented by the conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), claimed that the state’s conversion therapy ban violates her freedom of speech under the First Amendment.

During opening arguments, Chiles’ lawyer, James Campbell, alleged that Colorado law forbids counsellors like his client “from helping minors pursue state disfavored goals on issues of issues of gender and sexuality.”

“This law prophylactically bans voluntary conversations, censoring widely held views on debated moral, religious and scientific questions. Aside from this law and recent ones like it, Colorado hasn’t identified any similar viewpoint-based bans on counselling. These laws are historic outliers,” he alleged.

During Colorado’s opening argument, the Solicitor General Shannon Stevenson defended the state’s ban, citing that “state power is at its apex when it regulates to ensure safety in the healthcare professions.”

“Colorado’s law lies at the bull’s eye center of this protection because it prohibits licensed professionals from performing one specific treatment because that treatment does not work and carries a great risk of harm,” she continued.

“No court has ever held that a law like this implicates the First Amendment, and for good reason. First, the law applies only to treatments, that is, only when a licensed professional is delivering clinical care to an individual patient. In that setting, providers have a duty to act in their patients’ best interest and according to their professional standards.

“The First Amendment affords no exception. Second, because this law governs only treatments, it does not interfere with any First Amendment interest. It does not stop a professional from expressing any viewpoint about the treatment to their patient or to anyone else.”

In addition to the above, the court heard an argument from the US Federal Government’s Principal Deputy Solicitor General Hashim Mooppan, who came out in support of Chiles, stating that the Colorado law is “subject to strict scrutiny under the First Amendment.”

During the question portions of the hearing, many of the conservative justices pushed back against the state’s law, with Justice Samuel Alito expressing concern that it was “blatant viewpoint discrimination.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett also posed the question of whether states can “pick a side” regarding the standard of care.

In response to Barrett’s question, Stevenson said: “The state can show we’re regulating a treatment and we’re regulating consistent with the standard of care. There is a confirmation, a security that the court can have that there is no other motive going to suppress viewpoints or expression.”

While addressing Campbell’s argument, liberal Justice Sotomayor described Chiles vs Salazar as “an unusual case,” citing that there has been no enforcement of Colorado’s law within the last six years.

She also pointed out that state officials did not consider Chiles’ faith-based counselling as a violation of the state’s ban before adding: “So how does that fit into being an imminent threat of prosecution? Yes, you have an argument; they’ve disavowed it. How does that give you standing?

In response, Campbell said he didn’t believe Colorado officials have disavowed enforcement, alleging that “the state was relying on a misreading of the allegations in the case to say there’s no standing.”

He also claimed that several anonymous complaints have been filed against his client, alleging that the state is now investigating them for violating the conversion therapy ban.

During a post-hearing press conference, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser told reporters: “This practice is harmful – it’s been banned on bipartisan basis in Colorado and many other states. It tells young people that who they are is not OK, leaving lasting harm.”

Weiser also pushed back on Campbell’s claim that the state was investigating Chiles, revealing that “there have been no official proceedings or efforts to take any action against the petitioner.”

In the wake of the hearing, an array of LGBTQIA+ activists and organisations have slammed the attempt to reverse Colorado’s conversion therapy ban, including Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson.

“So-called ‘conversion therapy is not therapy, it is an abusive, discredited pseudoscience rooted in shame, rejection and fear. It often resorts to guilt, coercion and trauma in a disturbing effort to make someone believe they are less than simply because of who they are,” she said.

“These appalling practices can destroy families, worsen mental health outcomes and rob people of their faith communities. Laws like Colorado’s are crucial in ensuring that parents can trust licensed mental health professionals to keep youth safe, supported and able to get the care they need without fear of judgment or bias.”

The Supreme Court is expected to reach a decision in Chiles v Salazar in June 2026.

To listen to the full 90-minute hearing, click here.

A TWO-year-old boy was killed as his parents walked him back from the beach, an inquest heard.

Sonny Macdonald was in his pushchair, just minutes away from home, when a car crashed into the family at around 8.15pm on August 16.

3

3

Tragedy struck as the vehicle lost control and smashed through a metal barrier in Gorrell Tank car park, Whitstable, Kent.

Sonny was pronounced dead at the scene, while his parents were rushed to hospital with serious injuries.

An inquest into the two-year-old’s death was opened at Oakwood House in Maidstone on Friday.

Coroner Katrina Hepburn said: “His mother and father witnessed his death, which occurred at approximately 8.24pm.

“[They] were walking back from Whitstable beach from the harbour with Sonny, who was in a pushchair.”

She said the car turned into Cromwell Road, “lost control” and “drove into the family”, as reported by Kent Online.

“The vehicle continued through a metal barrier down onto a car park below, around a six-foot drop, taking Sonny with it,” the coroner added.

Due to an ongoing police investigation, the inquest was adjourned.

Kent Police arrested a man in his 20s at the scene of the horror, on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving.

He has been bailed while investigations are ongoing.

Floral tributes and cuddly toys were left at the scene in wake of the tragedy.

Canterbury and Whitstable MP Rosie Duffield said at the time: “I was shocked and very saddened to hear about the horrific incident in Whitstable, and I cannot begin to imagine what the family of the little boy who lost his life must be going through.

“My thoughts are with them and all caught up in this awful tragedy.

”Thank you to our excellent emergency services and all who were there to help, I hope the Police are able to carry out their investigations swiftly and provide some answers about what happened.

“I would urge anyone who may have been nearby to contact Kent Police in case you may have picked up important evidence on your dashcam, or witnessed something that may turn out to be significant.”

Witnesses who have not yet spoken to police, should call 01622 798538 or email [email protected], quoting reference BN/AL/058/25.

Relevant CCTV and dashcam footage can be uploaded via the online portal.

3

Aug. 6 (UPI) — A federal judge in Florida on Wednesday heard arguments from two groups seeking an injunction to halt the operation and further construction of an immigration detention center in the Everglades called “Alligator Alcrataz.”

District Judge Kathleen Williams conducted a hearing in Miami on a lawsuit by environmental groups and the Miccosukee Tribe, claiming the state and federal government bypassed mandatory ecological reviews required under the National Environmental Policy Act during construction.

They also said the detention facility, which now houses 1,000 detainees with plans for up to 5,000, was built in less than two weeks without public notice or comment, and didn’t comply with other statutes, including the Endangered Species Act.

The detention center, which is about 75 miles west of Miami and 44 miles southwest of Naple, is amid swampland that includes alligators, pythons, snakes and other predators.

Randy Kautz, an expert in Florida wildlife, said 120 to 230 endangered panthers are in the “core area” and increased human activity will harm reproduction.

“There has been a stable reproducing population of panthers in this area in this range at least over the last 30 years,” he said in court. “Panthers have succeeded and resided here.”

Panthers were tracked in the 1,000 acres near the detention facility, which was built on a rarely used airstrip off U.S. 41 in Ochopee in Miami-Dade County near Collier County. The so-called Alligator Alley, which is part of Interstate 75, runs 80 miles across the state through the Everglades.

Attorneys say the work is exempt from the National Environmental Policy Act because it was initially funded, constructed and managed by the state. But Florida state Rep. Anna Eskamani testified the Department of Homeland Security wants the facility.

More than 40,000 people opposed the detention center in a petition on the website of the Friends of the Everglades, a nonprofit, which is one of the parties in the lawsuit.

“We are very concerned about potential impacts of runoff” and “large, new industrial-style lights that are visible from 15 miles away, even though having a dark sky designation,” Eve Samples, the executive director of the group, told the court.

“Driving out there myself many times, the increased traffic is visible. I saw two dead gators last time I visited, so definitely a difference in the area.”

The detention facility neighbors land leased to the Miccosukee Indian Tribe with villages, a school, hunting areas and sacred sites.

Civil rights groups filed a second lawsuit alleging that detainees’ constitutional rights are being violated. A hearing in that case is scheduled for Aug. 18.

WTVJ-TV reported limited access to showers, spoiled food, extreme heat and mosquitoes. They also allege they are being barred from meeting lawyers with some held without any charges.

President Donald Trump toured the facility on July 1 with Gov. Ron DeSantis and Homeland Security Secretry Kristi Noem before the opening two days later.

The first deportation flights departed from the airstrip on July 25.

Legislators in Congress and the state, who initially were denied access, were allowed to visit on July 12 but couldn’t speak to the detainees and access to the property was limited.

“Rural immigrant detention camps — 750 people in cages like animals — is un-American, and it should be shut down,” state Sen. Carlo Guillermo Smith said.

State and federal officials defend the conditions.

“All detainees are provided with proper meals, medical treatment, and have opportunities to communicate with their family members and lawyers,” Homeland Security spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin told NBC News last month. “Ensuring the safety, security, and well-being of individuals in our custody is a top priority.”

DeSantis has said the airport site, called the Dade-Collier Training and Transition Facility, won’t have any effect on the surrounding environment.

DeSantis and Noem have touted the location because it is in a relatively remote area and surrounded by swampland.

DeSantis utilized an emergency order in 2023 in response to Cuban and Haitian migrants arriving in the Florida Keys by boat, with the state offering to pay $20 million for the land.

Florida will seek reimbursement from the federal government for the $450 million yearly cost of running the facility, a senior Department of Homeland Security official told the Miami Herald.

County officials approve the use of the airstrip for immigrants.

The airstrip was envisioned to become an airport with construction to begin in 1968. Work was halted in 1970 because of environmental concerns, but not before one runway was finished. The runway was used for training flights.

The land later became Big Cyprus National Preserve, which encompasses 1,139 square miles. The preserve is north of Everglades National Park, which covers 2,356 square miles.

Oral arguments over United States President Donald Trump’s power to impose tariffs have kicked off before a US appeals court after a lower court ruled he had exceeded his authority by imposing sweeping new levies on imported goods.

The appeals court judges on Thursday sharply questioned whether what Trump calls his “reciprocal” tariffs, announced in April, were justified by the president’s claim of emergency powers.

A panel of all the court’s active judges – eight appointed by Democratic presidents and three appointed by Republican presidents – is hearing arguments in two cases brought by five small US businesses and 12 Democratic-led US states.

The judges on the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC, pressed government lawyer Brett Shumate to explain how the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets, gave Trump the power to impose tariffs.

Trump is the first president to use IEEPA to impose tariffs.

The judges frequently interrupted Shumate, peppering him with a flurry of challenges to his arguments.

“IEEPA doesn’t even say tariffs, doesn’t even mention them,” one of the judges said.

Shumate said the law allows for “extraordinary” authority in an emergency, including the ability to stop imports completely. He said IEEPA authorises tariffs because it allows a president to “regulate” imports in a crisis.

The states and businesses challenging the tariffs argued they are not permissible under IEEPA and the US Constitution grants Congress, and not the president, authority over tariffs and other taxes.

Neal Katyal, a lawyer for the businesses, said the government’s argument that the word “regulate” includes the power to tax would be a vast expansion of presidential power.

Tariffs are starting to build into a significant revenue source for the federal government as customs duties in June quadrupled to about $27bn, a record, and through June have topped $100bn for the current fiscal year, which ends on September 30. That income could be crucial to offset lost revenue from extended tax cuts in a Trump-supported bill that passed and became law this month.

“Tariffs are making America GREAT & RICH Again,” Trump wrote in a social media post on Thursday. “To all of my great lawyers who have fought so hard to save our Country, good luck in America’s big case today.”

But economists said the duties threaten to raise prices for US consumers and reduce corporate profits. Trump’s on-again, off-again tariff threats have roiled financial markets and disrupted US companies’ ability to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices.

Dan Rayfield, the attorney general of Oregon, one of the states challenging the levies, said the tariffs are a “regressive tax” that is making household items more expensive.

Since Trump began imposing his wave of tariffs, companies ranging from carmaker Stellantis to American Airlines, temporarily suspended financial guidance for investors, which has since started again but has been revised down. Companies across multiple industries, including Procter and Gamble, the world’s largest consumer goods brand, announced this week that it would need to raise prices on a quarter of its goods.

The president has made tariffs a central instrument of his foreign policy, wielding them aggressively in his second term as leverage in trade negotiations and to push back against what he has called unfair practices.

Pressure outside trade

Trump has said the April tariffs, which he placed on most countries, are a response to persistent US trade imbalances and declining US manufacturing power. However, in recent weeks, he’s used them to increase pressure on nontrade issues.

He hit Brazil with 50 percent tariffs over the prosecution of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, a key Trump ally who is on trial for an alleged coup attempt after he lost the 2022 presidential election.

Trump also threatened Canada over its move to recognise a Palestinian state, saying a trade deal will now be “very hard”.

He said tariffs against China, Canada and Mexico were appropriate because those countries were not doing enough to stop fentanyl from crossing US  borders. The countries have denied that claim.

On May 28, a three-judge panel of the US Court of International Trade sided with the Democratic states and small businesses that are challenging Trump.

It said IEEPA, a law intended to address “unusual and extraordinary” threats during national emergencies, did not authorise tariffs related to longstanding trade deficits. The appeals court has allowed the tariffs to remain in place while it considers the administration’s appeal. The timing of the court’s decision is uncertain, and the losing side will likely appeal quickly to the US Supreme Court.

The case will have no impact on tariffs levied under more traditional legal authorities, such as duties on steel and aluminium. The president recently announced trade deals that set tariff rates on goods from the European Union and Japan after smaller trade agreements with Britain, Indonesia and Vietnam.

Trump’s Department of Justice has argued that limiting the president’s tariff authority could undermine ongoing trade negotiations while other Trump officials have said negotiations have continued with little change after the initial setback in court. Trump has set a deadline of Friday for higher tariffs on countries that don’t negotiate new trade deals.

There are at least seven other lawsuits challenging Trump’s invocation of IEEPA, including cases brought by other small businesses and California.

PA Media

PA Media

PA Media

‘Quite aggressive’

‘Not a complicated case’

NEW YORK — As President Trump focuses on global trade deals and dispatching troops to aid his immigration crackdown, his lawyers are fighting to erase the hush money criminal conviction that punctuated his reelection campaign last year and made him the first former — and now current — U.S. president found guilty of a crime.

On Wednesday, that fight landed in a federal appeals court in Manhattan, where a three-judge panel heard arguments in Trump’s long-running bid to get the New York case moved from state court to federal court so he can then seek to have it thrown out on presidential immunity grounds.

It’s one way he’s trying to get the historic verdict overturned.

The judges in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals spent more than an hour grilling Trump’s lawyer and the appellate chief for the Manhattan district attorney’s office, which prosecuted the case and wants it to remain in state court.

At turns skeptical and receptive to both sides’ arguments on the weighty and seldom-tested legal issues underlying the president’s request, the judges said they would take the matter under advisement and issue a ruling at a later date.

But there was at least one thing all parties agreed on: It is a highly unusual case.

Trump lawyer Jeffrey Wall called the president “a class of one” and Judge Susan L. Carney noted that it was “anomalous” for a defendant to seek to transfer a case to federal court after it has been decided in state court.

Carney was nominated to the 2nd Circuit by Democratic President Obama. The other judges who heard arguments, Raymond J. Lohier Jr. and Myrna Pérez, were nominated by Obama and Democratic President Biden, respectively.

The Republican president is asking the federal appeals court to intervene after a lower-court judge twice rejected the move. As part of the request, Trump wants the court to seize control of the criminal case and then ultimately decide his appeal of the verdict, which is now pending in a state appellate court.

Trump’s Justice Department — now partly run by his former criminal defense lawyers — backs his bid to move the case to federal court. If he loses, he could go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Everything about this cries out for federal court,” Wall argued.

Wall, a former acting U.S. solicitor general, argued that Trump’s historic prosecution violated the U.S. Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling, which was decided last July, about a month after the hush money verdict. The ruling reined in prosecutions of ex-presidents for official acts and restricted prosecutors from pointing to official acts as evidence that a president’s unofficial actions were illegal.

Trump’s lawyers argue that prosecutors rushed to trial instead of waiting for the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision, and that they erred by showing jurors evidence that should not have been allowed under the ruling, such as former White House staffers describing how Trump reacted to news coverage of the hush money deal and tweets he sent while president in 2018.

“The district attorney holds the keys in his hand,” Wall argued. “He doesn’t have to introduce this evidence.”

Steven Wu, the appellate chief for the district attorney’s office, countered that Trump was too late in seeking to move the case to federal court. Normally, such a request must be made within 30 days of an arraignment, but a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., recently ruled that exceptions can be made if “good cause” is shown. Trump hasn’t done that, Wu argued.

While “this defendant is an unusual defendant,” Wu said, there is nothing unusual about a defendant raising subsequent court decisions, such as the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling for Trump, when they appeal their convictions. That appeal, he argued, should stay in state court.

Trump was convicted in May 2024 of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal a hush money payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels, whose affair allegations threatened to upend his 2016 presidential campaign. Trump denies her claim and said he did nothing wrong. It was the only one of his four criminal cases to go to trial.

Trump’s lawyers first sought to move the case to federal court following his March 2023 indictment, arguing that federal officers including former presidents have the right to be tried in federal court for charges arising from “conduct performed while in office.” Part of the criminal case involved checks he wrote while he was president.

They tried again after his conviction, about two months after the Supreme Court issued its immunity ruling.

U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who was nominated by Democratic President Clinton, denied both requests, ruling in part that Trump’s conviction involved his personal life, not his work as president.

Wu argued Wednesday that Trump and his lawyers should’ve acted more immediately after the Supreme Court ruled, and that by waiting they waived their right to seek a transfer. Wall responded that they delayed seeking to move the case to federal court because they were trying to resolve the matter by raising the immunity argument with the trial judge, Juan Merchan.

Merchan ultimately rejected Trump’s request to throw out the conviction on immunity grounds and sentenced him on Jan. 10 to an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction intact but sparing him any punishment.

Sisak writes for the Associated Press.