WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to rule on whether the Trump administration may end the temporary protection that had been extended in the past to migrants who live and work in the United States.
At issue are legal protections for about 6,000 Syrians and up to 350,000 Haitians.
The court’s announcement signals the justices want to resolve this issue in a written opinion rather through emergency appeals.
Twice last year, the court’s conservatives set aside decisions from judges in San Francisco who said President Trump’s Homeland Security secretary had overstepped her authority.
But those decisions did not set clear precedents, and in recent weeks, judges in New York and Washington, D.C., blocked the administration’s plan to end the special protections for Haitians and Syrians.
Frustrated by what he labeled “indefensible” decisions, Trump’s Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer advised the court to hear arguments and issue a written ruling on the issue.
The justices on Monday agreed to just that. Arguments will be heard in April, and a decision will be handed down by July.
Immigrant-rights advocates argued the repeal of the special protection would be cruel and unjust to migrants who have established lives and careers in this country.
In 1990, Congress authorized giving temporary shelter to non-citizens from countries experiencing armed conflict, natural disaster or “extraordinary and temporary conditions” that prevent them from returning there.
In 2012, the Homeland Security secretary extended this protection to Syrians in response to a “brutal crackdown” engineered by its then-President Bashar al-Assad.
Last year, citing Assad’s fall from power, Trump’s Secretary Kristi Noem proposed to cancel the temporary protection for Syrians. Lawyers for the Syrians questioned how this could be seen as an emergency requiring an immediate ruling.
They said about 6,100 Syrians who have lived here lawfully for years.
They are “highly sought-after doctors and medical professionals, reporters, students, teachers, business owners, caretakers, and others who have been repeatedly vetted and by definition have virtually no criminal history. The government apparently needs urgent authority to send them to a country in the middle of an active war,” the lawyers said.
In 2010, the Obama administration extended the protection to Haiti after an earthquake caused death and damage in Port-au-Prince, the capital.
Judges in New York and Washington blocked those repeals and said the high court had given “no explanation” for its decision upholding the repeal for Venezuelans.
Those judges said the Supreme Court’s earlier orders orders “involved a TPS designation of a different country, with different factual circumstances, and different grounds for resolution by the district court.”
Sauer pointed to a provision in the 1990 law that says judges have no authority to second-guess the government’s decision to end it.
“There is no judicial review of any determination of the [Secretary] with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign state under this subsection,” the law says.
In the three weeks since Trump’s attorney filed his emergency appeal, there have been two significant changes since then.
A federal judge on Monday temporarily blocked federal health officials from cutting the number of vaccines recommended for every child, and said U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. likely violated federal procedures in revamping a key vaccine advisory committee.
The decision halts an order by Kennedy — announced in January — to end broad recommendations for all children to be vaccinated against flu, rotavirus, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, some forms of meningitis and RSV.
A number of leading medical groups raised alarms that the vaccine recommendation changes made under Kennedy would undermine protections against a half-dozen diseases. And the American Academy of Pediatrics and some other groups amended a lawsuit they had filed in July, asking the judge to stop the scaling back of the nation’s childhood vaccination schedule.
The original lawsuit, in federal court in Boston, focused on Kennedy’s decision to stop recommending COVID-19 vaccinations for most children and pregnant women.
The suit was updated as Kennedy took more steps that alarmed medical societies, causing the plaintiffs to ask Judge Brian E. Murphy to take steps to address those policy changes too. For example, the amended complaint asked the court to look at Kennedy’s actions concerning the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which advises public health officials on what vaccines to recommend to doctors and patients.
Kennedy, a leading anti-vaccine activist before becoming the nation’s top health official, fired the entire 17-member panel last year and replaced it with a group that includes several anti-vaccine voices.
Murphy, who was nominated to the bench by President Biden, said Kennedy’s reconstitution of ACIP likely violated federal law. He ordered the appointments — and all decisions made by the reformed committee — put on hold.
Department of Health and Human Services spokesman Andrew Nixon said: “HHS looks forward to this judge’s decision being overturned just like his other attempts to keep the Trump administration from governing.”
ACIP was scheduled to meet this week to discuss COVID-19 vaccines, among other issues, but that gathering was being postponed.
“ACIP as currently constituted cannot meet,” said Richard Hughes IV, an attorney representing the AAP. “How can a committee meet without nearly the entirety of its membership?”
BOSTON — A U.S. court ruling in Massachusetts has temporarily paused the looming termination of Temporary Protected Status for immigrants from Somalia.
U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs’ ruling Friday said there would be “weighty” consequences if Somalia’s TPS designation were allowed to expire Tuesday. Advocates filed an emergency motion in federal court seeking to pause the termination after the Trump administration promised to end the designation last month during an immigration crackdown in Minneapolis, where many Somalis live.
“Over one thousand people will face ‘a myriad of grave risks,’ including detention and deportation, physical violence if removed to Somalia, and forced separation from family members,” the ruling said.
Burroughs said implementing an administrative stay and deferring ruling on the postponement gives both sides time to file briefs on the emergency motion.
“While the stay is in effect, the termination shall be null, void, and of no legal effect,” the ruling said, noting that those with TPS status or pending applications will retain rights including eligibility for work authorization and protection against deportation and detention.
In a statement, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security said the ruling is the latest example of a judge preventing Trump from “restoring integrity” to the U.S. immigration system.
“Temporary means temporary,” the statement said. “Country conditions in Somalia have improved to the point that it no longer meets the law’s requirement for Temporary Protected Status. Allowing Somali nationals to remain temporarily in the United States is contrary to our national interests. The Trump administration is putting Americans first.”
Representatives of the plaintiffs fighting the termination said in a statement that even though the order is temporary and “many battles lie ahead,” they are “heartened by the interim protection today’s order affords all Somali people in the U.S. who have TPS or pending TPS applications.”
March 13 (UPI) — A federal judge this week quashed subpoenas the Department of Justice had issued to Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell because they were issued to pressure him into adjusting interest rates.
Judge James Boasberg redressed the DOJ for the subpoenas, saying that their purpose had nothing to do with a probe about renovations at the Federal Reserve in Washington, D.C.
The DOJ in January launched a criminal investigation into Powell’s testimony last year about the renovations, which Powell at the time said were “pretexts” to punish him and the Fed after they did not set interest rates at levels demanded by President Donald Trump.
“The Government has produced essentially zero evidence to suspect Chair Powell of a crime; indeed, its justifications are so thin and unsubstantiated that the Court can only conclude that they are pretextual,” Boasberg wrote in the opinion.
The department in January issued grand jury subpoenas in reference to Powell’s comments about the multi-year project to renovate the Fed’s office buildings during his June 2025 testimony before the Senate Banking Committee.
During a tour of the renovations, Powell disputed Trump’s over-estimates of the renovation’s cost, and threatened to sue him for the “horrible and grossly incompetent job” Powell had done on the project.
Overall, however, Trump has repeatedly ripped into and mused about firing Powell, which he cannot do, because the Fed chair has repeatedly said that interest rate changes would be dictated by only the market, rather than the preferences of any one person.
In the opinion, which was unsealed Friday, Boasberg said he blocked the subpoenas because “a mountain of evidence suggests that the Government served these subpoenas on the Board to pressure its Chair into voting for lower interest rates or resigning.”
President Donald Trump speaks during an event celebrating Women’s History Month in the East Room of the White House on Thursday. Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo
WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Friday quashed Justice Department subpoenas issued to the Federal Reserve in January, a severe blow to an investigation that has already attracted strong criticism on Capitol Hill.
Judge James Boasberg said that a “mountain of evidence suggests” that the purpose of the subpoenas was simply to pressure the Fed to cut its key interest rate, as President Trump has repeatedly demanded.
Fed Chair Jerome Powell revealed the investigation Jan. 11, prompting Senator Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican to block consideration of Trump’s pick to replace Powell as Fed chair when his term expires May. 15.
Great British Bake Off winner Nadiya Hussain has spoken out about the Channel 4 series
Nadiya Hussain has had her say on Bake Off(Image: Dave Benett, Dave Benett/Getty Images)
More than a decade since she was crowned winner of The Great British Bake Off and became one of TV’s most successful new stars, Nadiya Hussain has admitted that she no longer watches the Channel 4 show.
Despite going on to enjoy a huge TV career, the last 12 months have proved something of a torrid time for the 41-year-old mum-of-three as the BBC cancelled her shows.
In a new interview with the Radio Times, Nadiya admits “it’s sad” how it ended but “near the end” of her relationship with the Beeb, she had voiced concerns about how her programmes were being made.
And as far as Bake Off is concerned, she admits it’s not a show she watches any more. She said: “The magic has disappeared for me. Sometimes it feels like it’s competing with some of the shows on Netflix where it’s bigger and bolder and more outrageous, and I don’t think it needs any of that. It’s a beautiful show, it’s a classic.”
As for new judge Nigella Lawson replacing Prue Leith, Nadia said: “Nigella’s got a lot to live up to following Prue. It’s very easy to become quite stuffy and very proper, and I love that she’s got a little wild streak about her. I want to be like Prue when I’m older. If I get to that lovely age.”
Following her triumph on GBBO in 2015, Nadiya went on to front numerous BBC shows including Nadiya Bakes, Nadiya’s Fast Flavours and Nadiya’s Simple Spices. She has also appeared as a guest panellist on ITV’s Loose Women.
Other achievements include being named by Debrett’s as one of the 500 most influential people in the UK, included on BBC News’ 100 Women list and invited to bake a cake for the 90th birthday celebrations of Queen Elizabeth II.
After gaining a publishing deal she was also shortlisted for Children’s Book of the Year prize at the British Book Awards for Bake Me A Story.
However, in a social media post last year, the presenter disclosed that the BBC had axed her series, calling it a “turning point” in her professional journey.
At the time, a BBC spokesperson said: “After several wonderful series we have made the difficult decision not to commission another cookery show with Nadiya Hussain at the moment. Nadiya remains a much-valued part of the BBC family, and we look forward to working together on future projects.”
In conversation with the Sun’s Fabulous magazine, she reflected: “The last year has been physically and mentally one of the hardest so my next biggest achievement would be choosing myself and deciding what’s right for me.”
This follows Nadiya describing her three children, Musa, 19, Dawud, 18, and Maryam, 15, as her “biggest achievement”. Nadiya shares her children with husband Abdal Hussain, whom she wed in Bangladesh at the age of 20.
Following the axing of her programme, she took the decision to switch careers and move into education. She’s now employed in schools as a teaching assistant, with aspirations of potentially qualifying as a teacher down the line.
She revealed that other broadcasters, including ITV and Channel 4, approached her about another series, but insists it’s “not something that I want to do”.
Speaking to woman&home magazine, she explained: “I’m currently working as a teaching assistant at a lovely little primary school. The plan is to gain some training and maybe in the future become a teacher.”
For the latest showbiz, TV, movie and streaming news, go to the new **Everything Gossip** website.
Live Nation has reached a settlement with the Justice Department in an antitrust case that put the entertainment giant at risk of being separated from Ticketmaster.
The ticket vendor’s settlement offer was announced, in a court hearing on Monday, less than a week after the long-awaited trial began. With pending approval from the judge, Live Nation will have to pay damages to the suing states and allow competitors to sell tickets on its platform. Media reports have said the company agreed to pay more than $200 million as part of the settlement.
The settlement caught Judge Arun Subramanian off guard. He said no one informed him of the tentative deal until late Sunday, even though a term sheet for a possible settlement was signed on Thursday, according to the Associated Press.
A 12-person jury was seated last Tuesday in a Manhattan federal courthouse and the trial had reached witness testimony by the end of last week. The complaint was filed in 2024, when the federal government, 39 states including California and the District of Columbia, alleged that Live Nation and Ticketmaster have monopolies in various aspects of the live music industry, such as concert promotion, venue operations, artist management and ticketing services.
Live Nation could not immediately be reached for a comment.
Many of the large monopoly claims were thrown out during a pretrial hearing last month, including an allegation that Live Nation’s industry power raises ticket prices and harms consumers. But the new settlement offers major structural changes to the company’s ticketing services.
If the trial judge approves the settlement, the Beverly Hills-based company will have to open parts of its platform to rival ticketing operators. This means third-party sellers like SeatGeek could list tickets and have access to Ticketmaster’s technology.
Another key claim in the lawsuit concerned Ticketmaster’s alleged exclusivity contracts, which required artists who booked Live Nation-owned venues to also use its ticketing services. The settlement now limits these contracts to four years and allows venues to place a number of its tickets on competing platforms.
The original lawsuit also argued that Live Nation manages more than 400 artists and controls more than 265 venues in North America — all while Ticketmaster simultaneously controls around 80% of the primary ticket marketplace and is increasing its involvement in the resale market. Under the pending legal agreement, Live Nation would have to divest more than 10 of its venues and Ticketmaster would also have to cap service fees at 15%.
Serona Elton, attorney and interim vice dean at the University of Miami’s Frost School of Music, said this outcome can be understood in two ways — it’s either a win that addresses anti-competitive behaviors or a deal that does not go far enough.
“It is important to understand that it is not illegal to be a monopoly and control a large portion of the market,” said Elton in a statement. “What is illegal is the use of anti-competitive tactics. In analyzing the settlement, the question to ask is if it does enough to address the alleged tactics and the harm they may have caused.”
Elton added that venues could benefit from these adjustments, but “music fans should not think this is going to bring ticket prices down to an affordable level as there are other causes behind the sky-high ticket prices.”
Stephen Parker, the executive director of the National Independent Venue Association, similarly expressed some skepticism about the potential settlement.
“The reported settlement does not appear to include any specific and explicit protections for fans, artists, or independent venues and festivals,” he said in a statement.
“Reported details also indicate that ticket resale platforms could be further empowered through new requirements for Ticketmaster to host their listings, which would likely exacerbate the price gouging potential for predatory resellers and the platforms that serve them,” Parker added . “If these facts are true, NIVA views this as a failure of the justice system.”
A settlement could mark the potential end to one of the major legal battles Live Nation is facing. The company is also being sued by the Federal Trade Commission and is dealing with a handful of class-action lawsuits from groups of concertgoers.
After the news of the settlement broke, Live Nation’s stock jumped over 5% to $164.03.
“Why were state law enforcement officers excluded?” U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder wanted to know.
The judge pressed California Deputy Atty. Gen. Cameron Bell to explain the thinking behind a pair of trailblazing new laws meant to unmask the federal immigration agents patrolling Golden State streets and compel them to identify themselves.
One of the laws required all law enforcement operating in the state to visibly display identification while on duty, with narrow exclusions for plainclothes, undercover and SWAT details. It applied to everyone else, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.
But the other law, a ban on masks worn by on-duty law enforcement officers, applied only to local cops and federal agents, with a broad exemption for the California Highway Patrol and other state peace officers.
Snyder wanted to know: Why were the laws different?
She never got an answer. Bell said she couldn’t comment on the actions of the Legislature.
State Sen. Scott Wiener attends the California Democratic Party convention in San Francisco in February.
(Jeff Chiu / Associated Press)
In the halls of the statehouse last year, Sen. Scott Wiener’s (D-San Francisco) No Secret Police Act and Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez’s (D-Alhambra) No Vigilantes Act were referred to as “legislative twins,” a nod to their shared gestation and conjoined legal fate. If passed, both would immediately be challenged by the Trump administration.
That’s precisely what happened. Both measures became law — but only the ID law survived its first court battle, sending state legislators back to the drawing board on the mask ban.
Polls show unmasking ICE is overwhelmingly popular with voters, and both Wiener and Gov. Gavin Newsom took credit for getting the bill passed.
But behind the scenes, according to nearly two dozen sources familiar with the legislative process who spoke to The Times, a fight had been brewing between the two Democrats.
Days before the amendment deadline last summer, Newsom’s office proposed changes to Wiener’s mask ban that, according to legal experts and opponents, would have exempted most ICE and Customs and Border Protection operations from the bill. The governor’s team denies that was the intent of their proposal. The resulting compromise exempted state peace officers from the law instead.
Snyder struck it down on Feb. 9, writing that she was “constrained” to do so because the exemption of state police “unlawfully discriminates against federal officers.”
Interviews with more than 20 lawmakers, policy advisors, law enforcement and legal experts show how the Labor Day weekend deal came together, ensuring both Wiener and the governor a political victory that in short order became a court triumph for the president.
There are now more than a dozen similar bills winding through statehouses from Olympia, Wash., to Albany, N.Y., as legislators try to rein in a practice the majority of Americans see as dangerous and corrosive. In Sacramento, similar efforts are underway to pass a narrower version of the law, and both Newsom and Wiener have said they were proud to make California the first state to pass an ICE mask ban.
Both sides said the legislative process is messy, and that eleventh-hour amendment fights are inevitable in a statehouse where more than 900 bills were passed and close to 800 signed into law last year.
Yet neither the governor’s office nor the legislator’s team has offered clear answers for why both accepted a last-minute change on a nationally watched bill that each was informed could kneecap the law’s constitutional standing in court.
“Seeing the carve-out, I was immediately really surprised,” said Bridget Lavender, staff attorney at the State Democracy Research Initiative, the nation’s leading expert on the myriad legal efforts to unmask ICE across the U.S. “That’s ultimately what doomed it.”
Others were more blunt.
“When I saw the final bill I said, ‘What happened here?’” said one prominent constitutional scholar, who asked not to be identified because they were advising several other state legislatures on similar mask ban efforts. “I can’t believe this happened.”
All eyes were really on California.
— Bridget Lavender, staff attorney at the State Democracy Research Initiative
Legally, the mask ban was always going to be a cat fight. Law enforcement groups loathed it. Constitutional scholars were wary. The Justice Department contends both the mask ban and the ID law illegally interfere with the operation of the federal government, a violation of the Constitution’s supremacy clause, while California likens them to highway speed limits, which apply to everyone equally.
“There is a very strong argument that the law is constitutional so long as it applies to all law enforcement,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berekely Law School and an early champion of the original No Secret Police Act, known in Sacramento as SB 627.
Others saw it differently.
“It’s a very complicated question as to whether states can enact law enforcement policies that bind the federal government,” said Eric J. Segall, a professor at Georgia State University College of Law. “The answer [here] is probably not. I regret that’s the law, but I’m pretty sure that’s the law.”
Everyone agreed, the Golden State would set the precedent.
“All eyes were really on California,” Lavender said.
Judge Snyder agreed with the state, upholding the ID law. Judges for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sharply questioned both the federal government and California in a hearing Tuesday, repeatedly emphasizing the lack of clear precedent and constitutional uncertainty of the law.
“California has done something that we just haven’t seen before,” said Judge Jacqueline Nguyen.
Most scholars believe it will ultimately be settled by the Supreme Court.
The mask ban would be on the same track now, if not for the state police exemption.
“We knew we really had to thread that needle very carefully,” said state Sen. Patricia Fahy of New York, whose mask ban bill could soon be fast-tracked in Albany. “You had to put all law enforcement in it. I say that as a non-lawyer, but I knew that.”
Wiener knew it too. A Harvard-trained lawyer and a former deputy city attorney for San Francisco, he’d rebuffed early requests to exempt state and local officers from the bill and circulated Chemerinsky’s July 23 op-ed in the Sacramento Bee explaining the necessity of a universal ban, including to the governor’s team.
The state’s powerful law enforcement unions were livid. They railed against the bill in public and in the Legislature, testifying relentlessly about the harm that would flow to them from a ban — including being required to enforce it against armed federal agents.
“The last thing you want is two people with firearms on their hips getting into an argument,” said Marshall McClain, a regional director in the Peace Officers Research Assn. of California, among the state’s richest and most powerful lobbying groups.
Law enforcement objections shaped the changes the governor’s legislative office sought just days before the Sept. 5 amendment deadline, according to a stakeholder involved in those discussions.
Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during a news conference in Los Angeles in 2024.
(Eric Thayer / Associated Press)
The most controversial ask from Newsom’s team was an exemption for all types of officers engaged in “warrant and arrest related operations” — precisely the type of enforcement Alex Pretti was filming when masked CBP agents tackled him to the ground and shot him to death in Minneapolis last month.
The governor’s office also sought an exemption for all officers engaged in “crowd management, intervention, and control” — the work ICE agent Jonathan Ross was doing when he shot and killed Renee Good less than three weeks earlier.
“We were working to ensure state officer safety and operational effectiveness, not exempt ICE,” said Diana Crofts-Pelayo, Newsom’s chief deputy director of communications.
Yet California Deputy Solicitor Gen. Mica Moore told the 9th Circuit on Tuesday that the state’s ID law only applies to officers engaged in “arrest or detention operations or … crowd control” — activities she characterized as central to its purpose.
Rather than swallow bad terms or risk Newsom’s veto, Wiener countered with the state police carve-out — a move constitutional experts advised him would leave the law at least some chance of survival.
The governor’s legislative team quickly accepted, leaving Bell and the attorney general’s office on the hook to defend the exemption.
Boosters argue that even with its fatal flaw, California’s law advanced such bans nationally in a pivotal moment last September.
“The politics have changed dramatically,” said Hector Villagra, vice president of policy advocacy for MALDEF, one of the mask ban’s sponsors. “[Today] people realize this is not normal in a democracy like ours.”
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court revived a San Diego judge’s order Monday and said parents have a right to know about their child’s gender identity at school.
The decision came in a 6-3 order granting an emergency appeal from lawyers for Chicago-based Thomas More Society.
They said the student privacy policy enforced in California infringes parents’ rights and the free exercise of religion.
“The parents object that these policies prevent schools from telling them about their children’s efforts to engage in gender transitioning at school unless the children consent to parental notification,” the court said. “The parents also take issue with California’s requirement that schools use children’s preferred names and pronouns regardless of their parents’ wishes.”
The judge’s injunction “does not provide relief for all the parents of California public school students, but only for those parents who object to the challenged policies or seek religious exemptions,” the justices added.
The six conservatives were in the majority, while the three liberals dissented.
Religious liberty advocates hailed the decision.
“Parents’ fundamental right to raise their children according to their faith doesn’t stop at the schoolhouse door,” said Mark Rienzi, president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. “California tried cutting parents out of their children’s lives while forcing teachers to hide the school’s behavior from parents. We’re glad the Court stepped in to block this anti-family, anti-American policy.”
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had put on hold a late December ruling by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, who held that the student privacy rules enforced by California school officials were unconstitutional.
“Parents and guardians have a federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school student child expresses gender incongruence,” Benitez wrote. “Teachers and school staff have a federal constitutional right to accurately inform the parent or guardian of their student when the student expresses gender incongruence.”
Escondido public schoolteachers Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori Ann West, who described themselves as “devout Catholics,” sued in 2023, and they were later joined by parents in Pasadena and Clovis.
The Supreme Court’s ruling refers only to the parents.
The parents who brought the case “have sincere religious beliefs about sex and gender, and they feel a religious obligation to raise their children in accordance with those beliefs,” the court said.
The court added: “Gender dysphoria is a condition that has an important bearing on a child’s mental health, but when a child exhibits symptoms of gender dysphoria at school, California’s policies conceal that information from parents and facilitate a degree of gender transitioning during school hours.”
“This is a watershed moment for parental rights in America,” said Paul M. Jonna, special counsel at Thomas More Society. “The Supreme Court has told California and every state in the nation in no uncertain terms: you cannot secretly transition a child behind a parent’s back.”
The 9th Circuit had agreed with the state’s attorneys who said the judge had misstated California law.
“The state does not categorically forbid disclosure of information about students’ gender identities to parents without student consent,” they said in a 3-0 decision.
“For example, guidance from the California Attorney General expressly states that schools can ‘allow disclosure where a student does not consent where there is a compelling need to do so to protect the student’s wellbeing,’ and California Education Code allows disclosure to avert a clear danger to the well-being of a child.”
In their parents’ rights appeal to the Supreme Court, attorneys said school employees are secretly encouraging gender transitions.
“California is requiring public schools to hide children’s expressed transgender status at school from their own parents — including religious parents — and to actively facilitate those children’s social transitions over their parents’ express objection,” they told the court.
“Right now, California’s parental deception scheme is keeping families in the dark and causing irreparable harm. That’s why we’re asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene immediately,” Jonna wrote in his appeal. “Every day these gender secrecy policies stay in effect, children suffer and parents are left in the dark.”
California state attorneys had urged the court to put the case on hold while it is under appeal.
They said the judge’s order “appears to categorically bar schools across the State from ever respecting a student’s desire for privacy about their gender identity or expression — or respecting a student’s request to be addressed by a particular name or pronouns—over a parent’s objection.”
They said the order “would allow no exceptions, even for extreme cases where students or teachers reasonably fear that the student will suffer physical or mental abuse.”
Simon Cowell, who was known for his brutal takedowns of fame-hungry hopefuls, is ‘back’ according to Britain’s Got Talent co-star Amanda Holden, who says his toned-down persona is gone
Amanda Holden says ‘the old Simon Cowell is back’ as BGT judge ditches ‘Mr Soft act’(Image: Netflix)
Amanda Holden believes her Britain’s Got Talent co-star Simon Cowell is back to his former, more straight-talking self, having ditched his “Mr Soft” act. As the ITV talent hunt gets underway, Amanda is glad to see the return of Simon’s infamous “one liners”, on the “chaotic” new series.
The new series, which began on 21st February, has already frustrated viewers at home. During the first episode fans were getting worked up over the ‘overuse’ of the infamous golden buzzer. As Ant and Dec reminded viewers at the start of the show, the golden buzzer is used when one of the judges deemed a contestant good enough to bypass the rest of the auditions and go straight through to the semi-final.
But while fans were already complaining, Amanda Holden has promised this series will be full of drama. As reported by the Mail, she explained: “Simon is back. He’s been Mr Soft in recent years, and I think it has a lot to do with the fact that KSI is so honest on the other end of the panel.”
Explaining he is done with ‘sugar coating’ his comments, she added: “I’m glad to see that Simon is no longer being soft serve ice-cream, although it was nice for a year or so!”
Ensure our latest headlines always appear at the top of your Google Search by making us a Preferred Source.Click here to activateor add us as your Preferred Source in your Google search settings.
Amanda says the new series “feels very loose and very chaotic”, with KSI helping the show thanks to his “succint” answers. Meanwhile “the old Simon” is back, with the Heart Radio host saying she is “loving” that Simon’s “one liners are better than ever”.
Simon has assured fans there will be “lots of surprises”, with more behind-the-scenes filming, letting the audience at home “behind the Wizard of Oz’s curtain”. But Amanda has recently admitted he “hated” one aspect of filming the new series.
The star was forced to step into head judge Simon’s role, after he had to miss filming after falling down some steps and hitting his head. The brief shake up saw Amanda thrust into head judge duties, with X Factor runner up Stacey Solomon joining the panel as a guest.
As reported by the Daily Star, Amanda explained: “I must admit I hated sitting in that seat! I’ve been on the show the longest, so I understand why I probably need to sit in that seat, but when I was there, I felt very outcast on the end.
“It’s okay if your team are sat to the left of you, Simon’s got dozens of staff and family watching from the side and communicating with him. Mine all decided to eat my snacks and sit in the dressing room paying no attention to the show or me whatsoever!
“Simon said to me, ‘You must have loved it. Did you feel powerful?’ I said I hated it because I had to keep leaning in to be part of the conversation. I never want to sit in that seat again! I’m juicy in the middle, it’s such a good spot.”
Elsewhere, talking about Stacey joining the judging panel, Amanda said: “She’s so lovely and I think we’ve got quite a similar style of judging.
“She’s warm, she’s super funny, she has a great understanding of what it’s like to be on the other side, because she obviously auditioned for The X Factor all those years ago.
“Even though she’s smashing it in the real world now, she’s very down to earth and doesn’t have an ego, so I think that worked really nicely for the day that she was pulled in. We’re all fans of her and her crafting is through the roof. If only I could be that type of mother!”
MINNEAPOLIS — A federal judge Friday extended an order protecting refugees in Minnesota who are lawfully in the U.S. from being arrested and deported, saying a Trump administration policy turns the “American Dream into a dystopian nightmare.”
U.S. District Judge John Tunheim granted a motion by advocates for refugees to convert a temporary restraining order that he issued in January into a more permanent preliminary injunction while the case develops.
The order applies only in Minnesota. But the implications of a new national policy on refugees that the Department of Homeland Security announced Feb. 18 were a major part of the discussion at a hearing held by the judge the next day.
“Minnesota refugees can now live their lives without fear that their own government will snatch them off the street and imprison them far from loved ones,” Kimberly Grano, an attorney with the International Refugee Assistance Project, told the Associated Press.
The Trump administration asserts that it has the right to arrest potentially tens of thousands of refugees across the U.S. who entered the country legally but don’t yet have green cards. A new Homeland Security memo interprets immigration law to say that refugees applying for green cards must return to federal custody one year after they were admitted to the U.S. so that their applications can be reviewed.
The judge expressed disbelief in a 66-page opinion.
“This Court will not allow federal authorities to use a new and erroneous statutory interpretation to terrorize refugees who immigrated to this country under the promise that they would be welcomed and allowed to live in peace, far from the persecution they fled,” Tunheim said.
He said the U.S. decades ago promised refugees fleeing persecution that they could build a new life after rigorous background checks.
“We promised them the hope that one day they could achieve the American Dream,” Tunheim wrote. “The Government’s new policy breaks that promise — without congressional authorization — and raises serious constitutional concerns. The new policy turns the refugees’ American Dream into a dystopian nightmare.”
Homeland Security and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said in a statement Friday night that the ruling was “yet another lawless and activist order from a federal judge” and that the Trump administration expected to be “vindicated in court.”
“USCIS is committed to rooting out fraud and protecting the public safety and national security interests of the American people by screening and vetting aliens,” the statement said.
Justice Department attorney Brantley Mayers said during a court hearing last week that the government should have the right to arrest refugees one year after entering the U.S., but he also indicated that would not always happen.
The judge noted that one refugee in the case, identified as D. Doe, was arrested in January after being told that someone had struck his car.
“He was immediately flown to Texas, where he was interrogated about his refugee status. He was kept in ‘shackles and handcuffs’ for sixteen hours. D. Doe was ultimately released on the streets of Texas, left to find his way back to Minnesota,” Tunheim said.
Karnowski and White write for the Associated Press and reported from Minneapolis and Detroit, respectively. AP writer Rebecca Boone in Boise, Idaho, contributed to this report.
US judge says that rapid deportation of migrants to countries other than their own violates due process.
A United States federal judge has ruled that the administration of President Donald Trump had violated the law through the swift deportation of migrants to countries other than their own, without giving them an opportunity to appeal their removal.
US District Judge Brian Murphy declared the policy invalid on Wednesday, teeing up a possible appeal from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to the Supreme Court.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
“It is not fine, nor is it legal,” Murphy wrote in his decision, adding that migrants could not be sent to an “unfamiliar and potentially dangerous country” without any legal recourse.
He added that due process – the right to receive fair legal proceedings – is an essential component of the US Constitution.
“These are our laws, and it is with profound gratitude for the unbelievable luck of being born in the United States of America that this Court affirms these and our nation’s bedrock principle: that no ‘person’ in this country may be ‘deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law’,” Murphy said.
The ruling is the latest legal setback in the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign.
Trump has long pledged to remove immigrants from the country who violate the law or are in the country without legal paperwork. But critics argue that his immigration crackdown has been marked by widespread neglect of due process rights.
They also point out that some of the deportees have been in the country legally, with their cases being processed through legal immigration pathways like asylum.
Murphy said in his ruling that the swift nature of the deportation obscures the details of each case, preventing courts from weighing whether each deportation is legal.
“The simple reality is that nobody knows the merits of any individual class member’s claim because [administration officials] are withholding the predicate fact: the country of removal,” wrote Murphy.
In the decision, Murphy also addressed some of the Trump administration’s arguments in favour of swift deportation.
He highlighted one argument, for instance, where the administration asserted it would be “fine” to deport migrants to third-party countries, so long as the Department of Homeland Security was not aware of anyone waiting to kill them upon arrival.
“It is not fine, nor is it legal,” Murphy responded in his decision.
Murphy has previously ruled against efforts to swiftly deport migrants to countries where they have no ties, and over the past year, he has seen some decisions overturned by the Supreme Court.
Noting that trend, Murphy said Wednesday’s decision would not take effect for 15 days, in order to give the administration the opportunity to appeal.
Last year, for instance, the conservative-majority Supreme Court lifted an injunction Murphy issued in April that sought to protect the due process rights of migrants being deported to third-party countries.
The injunction had come as part of a case where the Trump administration attempted to send eight men to South Sudan, despite concerns about human rights conditions there.
Wednesday’s decision, meanwhile, stemmed from a class-action lawsuit brought by immigrants similarly facing deportation to countries they had no relation to.
A lawyer for the plaintiffs, Trina Realmuto from the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, hailed Murphy’s latest ruling.
“Under the government’s policy, people have been forcibly returned to countries where US immigration judges have found they will be persecuted or tortured,” Realmuto said in a statement.
Realmuto added that the ruling was a “forceful statement” about the policy’s constitutionality.
1 of 5 | Former Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith testifies at a House Judiciary Committee oversight hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on January 22. A federal judge on Monday blocked Smith’s report on his investigation into President Donald Trump’s handling of classified documents held at Mar-a-Lago. File Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo
Feb. 23 (UPI) — A federal judge in Florida on Monday blocked the public release of former special counsel Jack Smith’s report on his investigation into classified documents held at President Donald Trump‘s Mar-a-Lago estate.
In the order, U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon of the Southern District of Florida said Smith’s report should not be made public after she previously ruled that he was illegally appointed to spearhead the case.
In July 2024, she said Smith’s appointment as special counsel by President Joe Biden violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. She took issue with what she described as the “broad power” given to Smith, the “indefinite” appropriate given to the task and his lack of supervision.
Biden appointed Smith to investigate whether Trump — then the former president — mishandled classified documents by storing them at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla. Smith’s probe resulted in 41 criminal counts against Trump, but Cannon dismissed the case in 2024.
In her order Monday, she accused Smith of accelerating efforts to prepare the report after her ruling so it could be completed before he left his position in January 2025 upon Trump’s inauguration to a second term. She said Smith used “discover materials generated in this case,” and there was a 2023 protective order preventing the public release of such materials unless approved by a court.
Cannon said she’s also blocking the release of the report because doing so “would cause irreparable damage to former defendants” involved in the case. Also named in the indictment against Trump were his aide, Walton Nauta, and Carlos De Oliveira, a maintenance worker accused of helping Nauta move 30 boxes of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago into a storage room under Trump’s direction.
Smith defended his investigation into the handling of classified documents — and another into Trump’s alleged attempts to interfere with the 2020 election — to Congress in December. He said if given the same evidence, he would charge Trump with crimes again.
“Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power,” Smith said.
“Our investigation also developed powerful evidence that showed President Trump willfully retained highly classified documents after he left office in January 2021, storing them at his social club, including in a bathroom and a ballroom where events and gatherings took place.”
President Donald Trump speaks alongside Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency Lee Zeldin in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on Thursday. The Trump administration has announced the finalization of rules that revoke the EPA’s ability to regulate climate pollution by ending the endangerment finding that determined six greenhouse gases could be categorized as dangerous to human health. Photo by Will Oliver/UPI | License Photo
NEW ORLEANS — A U.S. appeals court has cleared the way for a Louisiana law requiring poster-sized displays of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms to take effect.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 12 to 6 to lift a block that a lower court first placed on the law in 2024. In the opinion released Friday, the court said it was too early to make a judgment call on the constitutionality of the law.
That’s partly because it’s not yet clear how prominently schools may display the religious text, whether teachers will refer to the Ten Commandments during classes or if other texts like the Mayflower Compact or the Declaration of Independence will also be displayed, the majority opinion said.
Without those sorts of details, the panel decided that it did not have enough information to weigh any 1st Amendment issues that might arise from the law. In other words, there aren’t enough facts available to “permit judicial judgment rather than speculation,” the majority wrote in the opinion.
In a concurring opinion, Circuit Judge James Ho, an appointee of President Trump, wrote that the law “is not just constitutional — it affirms our nation’s highest and most noble traditions.”
The six judges who voted against the decision wrote a series of dissents, with some arguing that the law exposes children to government-endorsed religion in a place they are required to be, presenting a clear constitutional burden.
Circuit Judge James L. Dennis, an appointee of President Clinton, wrote that the law “is precisely the kind of establishment the Framers anticipated and sought to prevent.”
The ruling is the result of the court’s choice to rehear the case with all judges present after three of them ruled in June that the Louisiana law was unconstitutional. The reversal comes from one of the nation’s most conservative appeals courts, and one that’s known for propelling Republican policies to a similarly conservative U.S. Supreme Court.
Republican Gov. Jeff Landry celebrated the ruling Friday, declaring, “Common sense is making a comeback!”
The ACLU of Louisiana, one of several groups representing plaintiffs, pledged to explore all legal pathways to continue fighting the law.
Arkansas has a similar law that has been challenged in federal court. And a Texas law took effect on Sept. 1, marking the widest reaching attempt in the nation to hang the Ten Commandments in public schools.
Some Texas school districts were barred from posting them after federal judges issued injunctions in two cases challenging the law, but they have already gone up in many classrooms across the state as districts paid to have the posters printed themselves or accepted donations.
The laws are among pushes by Republicans, including Trump, to incorporate religion into public school classrooms. Critics say doing so violates the separation of church and state, while backers say the Ten Commandments are historical and part of the foundation of U.S. law.
Joseph Davis, an attorney representing Louisiana in the case, applauded the court for upholding the nation’s “time-honored tradition of recognizing faith in the public square.”
Families from a variety of religious backgrounds, including Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism, have challenged the laws, as have clergy members and nonreligious families.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation, another group involved in the challenge, called the ruling “extremely disappointing” and said the law will force families “into a game of constitutional whack-a-mole” where they will have to separately challenge each school district’s displays.
Louisiana Atty. Gen. Liz Murrill said after the ruling that she had sent schools several correct examples of the required poster.
In 1980, the Supreme Court ruled that a similar Kentucky law violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says Congress can “make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The court found that the law had no secular purpose but served a plainly religious purpose.
And in 2005, the Supreme Court held that such displays in a pair of Kentucky courthouses violated the Constitution. At the same time, the court upheld a Ten Commandments marker on the grounds of the Texas state Capitol in Austin.
Schoenbaum and Boone write for the Associated Press.
Britain’s Got Talent returns on Saturday night – but without former Strictly star Bruno Tonioli as he quit the show in 2025 after just two years of service
Bruno Tonioli quit Britain’s Got Talent in 2025 after two years and three seasons of work(Image: GettyImages)
Britain’s Got Talent fans will notice Bruno Tonioli is missing from the line-up when the show returns to ITV on Saturday night. The former Strictly Come Dancing judge exited the series after just two years.
Head judge Simon Cowell will be joined as usual by presenter Amanda Holden and singer Alesha Dixon as the long-running series returns for a 19th season. And the Bruno-shaped hole has been seamlessly filled by YouTube sensation KSI, who BGT fans will recall appeared on the 2025 season as a guest judge.
Fans of the ITV talent show were surprised when Bruno ditched rival BBC show Strictly to join the panel in 2023, replacing controversial judge David Walliams, who appeared on the panel from 2012 until 2022. After just two years and three seasons of red and golden buzzer bashing, Bruno decided it was time to vacate his Got Talent chair – but reportedly left the show on good terms. Here is a look back at the reason Bruno quit Britain’s Got Talent.
Ensure our latest headlines always appear at the top of your Google Search by making us a Preferred Source. Click here to activate or add us as your Preferred Source in your Google search settings.
Why did Bruno Tonioli quit Britain’s Got Talent in 2025?
Despite appearing on BGT for three seasons, Bruno Tonioli is arguably still best known for being a judge on the BBC’s Strictly Come Dancing from 2004 until 2019. The Italian TV star is also a judge on the American version of Strictly – Dancing With The Stars – and has appeared on the panel across the Atlantic since 2005.
While Bruno had been able to balance judging both Strictly and DWTS, the filming schedule for Britain’s Got Talent proved to be too challenging – with clashes ultimately forcing Bruno to walk away. In a statement released last year, Bruno explained why he was leaving the ITV show – and threw his support behind his replacement.
The 70-year-old star said: “After three incredible series, I’ve sadly had to walk away from a job which has opened my eyes to so much incredible talent and step down as a judge on BGT.
“And whilst I look forward to filming a new series of Dancing with the Stars in the US, I will miss the chaos and joy that BGT brings, as well as all the wonderful people I’ve had the privilege of working with. They truly are a brilliant team who make brilliant television, and I know KSI will be a fantastic judge too, as he’s already proven this year.”
Bruno previously opened up to the Daily Mail about the strain the constant travel between the UK and the USA was having on him. He revealed: “There is no animosity, it was a mutual decision with both of us saying, ‘Listen, this is not going to work like it used to.’ I just couldn’t do the flying anymore. I don’t know how I survived that schedule. To be honest, it’s a miracle.”
What has KSI said of replacing Bruno as a BGT judge?
Britain’s Got Talent fans will recall seeing YouTube star and rapper KSI – real name Olajide Olatunji, 32 – filling in for Bruno at certain points during the 2025 season as his busy schedule kept him away from the UK. After wowing audiences as well as the fellow judges, KSI seemed like an obvious choice to take over from Bruno full-time.
The rap star has been enthusiastic about his promotion as a full-time judge – and vowed to help the panel uncover more undisputable talent via the ITV show. He said in a past statement: “I’m so grateful and happy to be a part of Britain’s Got Talent team for another season.”
He added: “I had such a good time last year, and I can’t wait to see some more top talent. I’m full of energy, ready to go, and can’t wait to make this the most entertaining BGT season ever. Let’s do this.”
What has Simon Cowell said about losing Bruno as a judge?
While head judge Simon Cowell, 66, has not explicitly commented on Bruno’s BGT exit, it has been reported that he supported the dance expert’s decision to leave – and consulted his young son Eric, 12, before announcing KSI as a replacement. A source told The Sun last year: “Simon’s been friends with Bruno for over 35 years and loved working with him on BGT.
“It was really tough knowing he had to let Bruno go because they couldn’t get the filming dates to work out with his commitments on Dancing with the Stars. Simon is always looking for new ways to keep the show evolving and loves to get the opinion of his young son. Eric was a big influence for Simon in choosing Bruno’s replacement. He’s obsessed with him and adores him. KSI is Eric’s favourite influencer. Plus, he’s been such a hit as a guest judge, and Simon recognises they need to keep the show different by moving forward to keep attracting the younger audience.”
The source added: “Bruno was popular with the grannies, but KSI is for the youngsters. KSI has a huge social media presence and Simon knows how important it is to keep the show more modern.”
Britain’s Got Talent returns to ITV and ITVX on Saturday night at 7pm.
RICHMOND, Va. — Democrats passed a new congressional map through the Virginia legislature on Friday that aims to help their party win four more seats in the national redistricting battle. It’s a flex of state Democrats’ political power, however hurdles remain before they can benefit from friendlier U.S. House district boundaries in this year’s midterm elections.
A judge in Tazewell, a conservative area in Southwest Virginia, has effectively blocked a voter referendum on the redrawn maps from happening on April 21 by granting a temporary restraining order, issued Thursday.
Democrats are appealing that decision and another by the same judge, who ruled last month that Democrats illegally rushed the planned voter referendum on their constitutional amendment to allow the remapping. The state’s Supreme Court picked up the party’s appeal of the earlier ruling.
The judge’s order prohibits officials from preparing for the referendum through March 18. But early voting for it was slated to start March 6, meaning Democrats would have to get a favorable court ruling within two weeks to stick with that timeline.
If Democrats get to carry out a referendum, voters will choose whether to temporarily adopt new congressional districts and then return to Virginia’s standard process after the 2030 census. Democrats wanted to publish the new map ahead of the April vote.
President Trump launched an unusual mid-decade redistricting battle last year by pushing Republican officials in Texas to redraw districts to help his party win more seats. The goal was for the GOP to hold on to a narrow House majority in the face of political headwinds that typically favor the party out of power in midterms.
Instead, it created a burst of redistricting efforts nationwide. So far, Republicans believe they can win nine more House seats in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio. Democrats think they can win six more seats in California and Utah, and are hoping to fully or partially make up the remaining three-seat margin in Virginia.
Democratic lawmakers in Virginia have sought to portray their redistricting push as a response to Trump’s overreach.
“The president of the United States, who apparently only one half of this chamber knows how to stand up to, basically directed states to grab power,” Virginia’s Democratic Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell said in February. “To basically maintain his power indefinitely — to rig the game, rig the system.”
Republicans have sounded aghast. House Minority Leader Terry Kilgore described the remap as a way for liberals in northern Virginia’s Arlington, Fairfax and Prince William counties to commandeer the rest of the state.
“In southwest Virginia, we have this saying … They say, ‘Terry, you do a good job up there, but you know, Virginia stops at Roanoke,” Kilgore previously said, referring to how some people across Virginia’s Appalachian region feel unrepresented in state politics. “That’s not going to be the same saying anymore, because Virginia is now going to stop just a little bit west of Prince William County.”
Virginia is currently represented in the U.S. House by six Democrats and five Republicans who ran in districts imposed by a court after a bipartisan legislative commission failed to agree on a map after the 2020 census.
Legislation that would put the Democrats’ more gerrymandered map into effect if voters approve the referendum now awaits the signature of Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger, who has indicated that she would support it.
“Virginia has the opportunity and responsibility to be responsive in the face of efforts across the country to change maps,” Spanberger said as she approved the referendum.
Democratic candidates are already lining up in anticipation. “Dopesick” author Beth Macy and former U.S. Rep. Tom Perriello launched campaigns in red areas that would be moved into districts with more registered Democrats.
Virginia Del. Dan Helmer and former federal prosecutor J.P. Cooney, who helped investigate Trump and was fired by him, have launched campaigns in a formerly rural district that would now mostly include voters just outside the nation’s capital. And former Democratic congresswoman Elaine Luria is mounting a comeback against Republican Rep. Jen Kiggans, who ousted her in 2022, in a competitive district that the map has made slightly more favorable to Democrats.
