justice

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned down a middle-school student’s claim he had a free-speech right to wear a T-shirt stating there are “only two genders.”

Over two dissents, the justices let stand a ruling that said a school may enforce a dress code to protect students from “hate speech” or bullying.

After three months of internal debate, the justices decided they would not take up another conservative culture-war challenge to progressive policies that protect LGBTQ+ youth.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. filed a 14-page dissent joined only by Justice Clarence Thomas. He said the case “presented an issue of great importance for our nation’s youth: whether public schools may suppress student speech because it expresses a viewpoint the schools disfavor.”

Liam Morrison, a seventh-grader from Massachusetts, said he was responding to his school’s promotion of Pride Month when students were encouraged to wear rainbow colors and posters urged them to “rise up to protect trans and gender-nonconforming students.”

Two years ago, he went to school wearing a black T-shirt that said “There are only two genders.”

A teacher reported him to the principal, who sent him home to change his shirt. A few weeks later, he returned with the word “censored” taped over the words “two genders” and was sent home again.

The T-shirt dispute asked the Supreme Court to decide whether school officials may limit the free expression of some students to protect others from messages they may see as offensive or hurtful.

In March, the court voted to hear a free-speech challenge to laws in California and 21 other states that prohibit licensed counselors from using “conversion therapy” with minors.

That case, like the one on school T-shirts, arose from appeals by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal group. It has already won free-speech rulings that allowed a cake maker and a website designer to refuse to participate in same-sex weddings despite state laws that barred discrimination based on sexual orientation.

On April 22, the court sounded ready to rule for religious parents in Montgomery County, Md., who seek the right to have their young elementary children “opt out” of the classroom use of new “LGBTQ-inclusive” storybooks.

The T-shirt case came before the court shortly after President Trump’s executive order declaring the U.S. government will “recognize two sexes, male and female,” not “an ever-shifting concept of self-assessed gender identity.”

Although the Supreme Court has yet to rule on T-shirts and the 1st Amendment, lower courts have upheld limits imposed by schools.

In 2006, the 9th Circuit Court in a 2-1 decision upheld a move by school officials at Poway High School in San Diego to bar a student from wearing a T-shirt that said “Homosexuality is shameful.” The appeals court said students are free to speak on controversial matters, but they are not free to make “derogatory and injurious remarks directed at students’ minority status such as race, religion and sexual orientation.”

Other courts have ruled schools may prohibit a student from wearing a Confederate flag on a T-shirt.

In the new case from Massachusetts, the boy’s father said his son’s T-shirt message was not “directed at any particular person” but dealt with a “hot political topic.”

In their defense, school officials pointed to their policy against bullying and a dress code that says “clothing must not state, imply, or depict hate speech or imagery that target groups based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious affiliation, or any other classification.”

Lawyers for the Alliance Defending Freedom sued on the student’s behalf and argued the school violated his rights under the 1st Amendment. They lost before a federal judge in Boston who ruled for school officials and said the T-shirt “invaded the rights of the other students … to a safe and secure educational environment.”

The 1st Circuit Court agreed as well, noting that schools may limit free expression of students if they fear a particular message will cause a disruption or “poison the atmosphere” at school.

The Supreme Court’s most famous ruling on student rights arose during the Vietnam War. In 1969, the Warren court ruled for high school students who wore black armbands as a protest.

In Tinker vs. Des Moines, the court said students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. … For school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, [they] must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint.”

The justices said then a symbolic protest should be permitted so long as it did not cause a “substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities.”

The attorneys for Liam Morrison contended he should win under that standard.

“This case isn’t about T-shirts. It’s about public school telling a middle-schooler that he isn’t allowed to express a view that differs from their own,” said David Cortman, an Alliance Defending Freedom attorney in the case of L.M. vs. Town of Middleborough.

Kabila, accused of ‘treason’ and ‘war crimes’, denies government accusations of links to M23 rebel group.

Joseph Kabila, former president of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), has attacked the country’s justice system after the Senate voted to lift his immunity, paving the way for him to be prosecuted for alleged treason and war crimes.

Kabila gave a livestreamed speech from an undisclosed location on Friday, a day after losing his immunity over alleged links to the M23 rebel group, saying that the justice system was “an instrument of oppression for a dictatorship desperately trying to survive”.

The 53-year-old, who denies supporting the Rwanda-backed rebels who have seized two major cities in the country’s conflict-battered east, has been in self-imposed exile since 2023.

The former president, who has repeatedly said he was returning from exile to help find a solution to the crisis, accused Kinshasa of taking “arbitrary decisions with disconcerting levity”.

Congo’s Senate voted overwhelmingly on Thursday to grant the government’s request to lift the lifetime immunity Kabila – leader of the country from 2001 to 2019 – had enjoyed because of his honorific title as “senator for life”.

Justice Minister Constant Mutamba said Kabila’s alleged crimes included “treason, war crimes, crimes against humanity and participation in an insurrectional movement” in the country’s east.

On Friday, Kabila said the DRC’s sovereignty and territorial integrity were non-negotiable. “As a soldier, I swore to defend my country to the supreme sacrifice … I remain more faithful than ever to this oath,” he said.

Kabila’s return to the DRC could complicate the bid to end the rebellion in the east, which contains vast supplies of critical minerals that United States President Donald Trump’s administration is eager to access.

Washington is pushing for a peace agreement to be signed between the DRC and Rwanda this summer, accompanied by minerals deals aimed at bringing billions of dollars of Western investment to the region, according to Massad Boulos, Trump’s senior adviser for Africa, cited by news agency Reuters.

Brigham Young quarterback Jake Retzlaff has been accused of raping a woman at his Utah residence in November 2023.

In a civil lawsuit filed this week in state court in Salt Lake County, a woman identified in documents as Jane Doe alleges that Retzlaff “raped, strangled, and bit” her after she and a friend came over to his place to play the video game “Fortnite.” The claimant is asking for more than $300,000 in damages over claims including assault, battery and “emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, mental distress and anxiety.”

Retzlaff’s attorney, Mark Baute, said on Wednesday in a statement to media outlets that Retzlaff is “factually innocent.”

“We look forward to proving that innocence,” Baute said. “Jake’s focus this year will be on football. We don’t try cases in the media, we will respect the process and establish Jake’s innocence through the judicial system.”

Retzlaff played two years at Corona Centennial High before spending a year each at Riverside City College and Golden West College in Huntington Beach. He has played 17 games in two seasons at BYU and led the Cougars to an 11-2 record last year. He has one year of college eligibility remaining.

BYU said in a statement to The Times that it learned about the lawsuit Wednesday.

“The university takes any allegation very seriously, following all processes and guidelines mandated by Title IX,” BYU wrote. “Due to federal and university privacy laws and practices for students, the university will not be able to provide additional comment.”

According to the lawsuit, Doe and Retzlaff met via social media in October and began messaging. They met in person in late November when Retzlaff invited the Salt Lake County resident to his place in Utah County. She and a friend came over “that evening and went to his room to play Fortnite,” the lawsuit states.

The filing states that Doe interacted with “Retzlaff’s friends and teammates” while playing the video game. Later, after her friend left, Doe and Retzlaff were kissing while watching a movie when “Retzlaff began escalating the situation, attempting to touch her breasts and genital area,” according to the complaint.

The lawsuit states that Doe “tried to de-escalate the situation and attempted to slow things down, trying to pull away, and saying ‘wait.’ She did not want to do anything sexual with him.”

Retzlaff’s physical contact started “causing her pain,” the complaint states, and Doe objected — saying “no” and “wait, stop” — and “wanted to leave, but was scared and felt like she could not get away.”

According to the lawsuit, Retzlaff would go on to allegedly pull Doe’s hair, forcefully kiss her, bite her lip (which allegedly caused a cut) and “put his hands around her neck and started to press down so that she could not breathe,” among other alleged actions before raping her.

Doe left after Retzlaff fell asleep, the lawsuit states. She went to a hospital “a few days later,” according to the lawsuit, and had a rape kit performed and photos taken of her injuries. She also spoke with the Provo Police Department but initially did not give Retzlaff’s name because “she was scared and in shock and not ready to confront him,” the lawsuit states.

“At some point after speaking to the police, an officer reached out to her asking for the name because someone else filed a complaint against a football player and the police wanted to see if it was the same person,” the lawsuit states.

“At that point, [Doe] shared Retzlaff’s name, and the Provo police then encouraged her not to do anything because, as they claimed, ‘sexual assault victims never get justice.’”

In a statement released Wednesday night, the Provo Police Department said it “is aware of a civil suit involving an allegation of rape made by an anonymous plaintiff against a BYU football player” but “has not been served any legal filing relating to this civil case.”

The department said it was able “to identify a possible correlating case report” based on the details of the civil case. The initials of the woman who called in that report match those of Retzlaff’s accuser. The Times does not name victims of sexual assault unless they choose to be identified.

“Our records show that on November 27th, 2023, our department received a phone report from a woman … who gave a similar account. She was treated with courtesy and care,” the department stated.

“The complainant in that case was given several opportunities to identify her abuser. She declined to do so, as is her right, and the case was subsequently closed. Collected evidence was examined, and it revealed no actionable investigative leads. Our victim advocates followed up several times to offer services but received no response.”

The department continued: “The civil suit states that Provo Police personnel discouraged the victim from proceeding, by telling her there is no justice for victims of sexual abuse. From everything we have reviewed, this is not true. We have a team of dedicated investigators and victim advocates whose sole mission is to provide justice to victims of sexual abuse. They do not send people away, warning them there is no justice for victims.

“Our Special Victims Unit investigations regularly result in criminal accountability for offenders. We hope the plaintiff chooses to make a statement to further the criminal investigation if desired.”

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court dealt an unexpected blow Thursday to the conservative drive for religious charter schools.

The justices announced they were split 4-4 in a test case heard last month from Oklahoma, which blocks the new Catholic charter school in the state.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett had announced in advance she would not participate in the decision. A former Notre Dame law professor, she was a close friend of law professor Nicole Garnett, who led the drive for faith-based charter schools.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts sounded uncertain during the oral argument in late April. In the past, he had said states may not discriminate against religious groups, but Oklahoma’s law applied only to public schools, not private ones that were religious.

Defenders of church-state separation had argued that charter schools by law were public, not “sectarian” or religious. They urged the court to uphold the laws as written.

Four other conservative justices had signaled they would vote to allow the religious charter school.

While Thursday’s split decision is a major setback for religious rights advocates, it does not finally settle the issue of religious charter schools. It’s possible, for example, that Justice Barrett may participate in a future case.

This is a breaking news story and will be updated.

The administration of President Donald Trump has begun the process of ending the federal government’s involvement in reforming local police departments, a civil rights effort that gained steam after the deaths of unarmed Black people like George Floyd and Breonna Taylor.

On Wednesday, the United States Department of Justice announced it would cancel two proposed settlements that would have seen the cities of Louisville, Kentucky, and Minneapolis, Minnesota, agree to federal oversight of their police departments.

Generally, those settlements — called consent decrees — involve a series of steps and goals that the two parties negotiate and that a federal court helps enforce.

In addition, the Justice Department said it would withdraw reports on six other local police departments which found patterns of discrimination and excessive violence.

The Trump administration framed the announcement as part of its efforts to transfer greater responsibility towards individual cities and states — and away from the federal government.

“It’s our view at the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division under the Trump administration that federal micromanagement of local police should be a rare exception, and not the norm,” said Harmeet Dhillon, an assistant attorney general at the Justice Department, said.

She argued that such federal oversight was a waste of taxpayer funds.

“There is a lack of accountability. There is a lack of local control. And there is an industry here that is, I think, ripping off the taxpayers and making citizens less safe,” Dhillon said.

But civil rights leaders and police reform advocates reacted with outrage over the news, which arrived just days before the fifth anniversary of Floyd’s murder.

Reverend Al Sharpton was among the leaders who called for police departments to take meaningful action after a viral video captured Floyd’s final moments. On May 25, 2020, a white police officer, Derek Chauvin, leaned his knee on Floyd’s neck for more than nine minutes, causing him to asphyxiate and die.

“This move isn’t just a policy reversal,” Sharpton said. “It’s a moral retreat that sends a chilling message that accountability is optional when it comes to Black and Brown victims.”

He warned that the Trump administration’s move sent a signal to police departments that they were “above scrutiny”.

The year of Floyd’s murder was also marked by a number of other high-profile deaths, including Taylor’s.

The 26-year-old medical worker was in bed late at night on March 13, 2020, when police used a battering ram to break into her apartment. Her boyfriend feared they were being attacked and fired his gun once. The police responded with a volley of bullets, killing Taylor, who was struck six times.

Her death and others stirred a period of nationwide unrest in the US, with millions of people protesting in the streets as part of social justice movements like Black Lives Matter. It is thought that the 2020 “racial reckoning” was one of the biggest mass demonstrations in US history.

Those protests unfolded in the waning months of Trump’s first term, and when Democrat Joe Biden succeeded him as president in 2021, the Justice Department embarked on a series of 12 investigations looking into allegations of police overreach and excessive violence on the local level.

Those investigations were called “pattern-or-practice” probes, designed to look into whether incidents of police brutality were one-offs or part of a larger trend in a given police department.

Floyd’s murder took place in Minneapolis and Taylor’s in Louisville — the two cities where the Trump Justice Department decided to drop its settlements on Wednesday. In both cities, under Biden, the Justice Department had found patterns of discriminatory policing.

“Police officers must often make split-second decisions and risk their lives to keep their communities safe,” the report on Minneapolis reads.

But, it adds, the local police department “used dangerous techniques and weapons against people who committed at most a petty offence and sometimes no offense at all”.

Other police departments scrutinised during this period included ones in Phoenix, Arizona; Memphis, Tennessee; Trenton, New Jersey; Mount Vernon, New York; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; and the Louisiana State Police.

Dhillon, who now runs the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, positioned the retractions of those Biden-era findings as a policy pivot. She also condemned the consent decrees as an overused tool and indicated she would look into rescinding some agreements that were already in place.

That process would likely involve a judge’s approval, however.

And while some community advocates have expressed concerns that consent decrees could place a burden on already over-stretched law enforcement departments, others disagree with the Justice Department’s latest move, arguing that a retreat could strip resources and momentum from police reform.

At the Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD), Chief Paul Humphrey said the commitment to better policing went beyond any settlement. He indicated he would look for an independent monitor to oversee reforms.

“It’s not about these words on this paper,” he said. “It’s about the work that the men and women of LMPD, the men and women of metro government and the community will do together in order to make us a safer, better place.”

And in Minneapolis, Mayor Jacob Frey doubled down, saying he could keep pushing forward with the police reform plan his city had agreed to.

“We will comply with every sentence of every paragraph of the 169-page consent decree that we signed this year,” he said at a news conference.

“We will make sure that we are moving forward with every sentence of every paragraph of both the settlement around the Minnesota Department of Human Rights, as well as the consent decree.”

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo smiles as he announces New York State’s lifting of all COVID restrictions at One World Trade Center on June 15, 2021. On Tuesday, the Justice Department launched a criminal investigation into the former governor — and New York City mayoral candidate — over last year’s Congressional testimony on nursing home deaths, a person briefed on the matter told The New York Times, CNN and NBC. File Photo by John Angelillo/UPI | License Photo

May 21 (UPI) — The Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation into former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo over his testimony last year to Congress, according to a report Tuesday.

House Republicans have accused Cuomo, who is currently a mayoral candidate for New York City, of lying to the House Oversight Committee about nursing home deaths in the state during the COVID-19 pandemic.

On Tuesday, two people briefed on the matter revealed that the Justice Department had opened a criminal investigation in response, according to The New York Times — which was the first to report — as well as CNN and NBC.

The Justice Department’s inquiry comes after it recently withdrew a separate corruption prosecution of current New York City Mayor Eric Adams, who is running for re-election against Cuomo.

Following last year’s testimony, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., claimed there was “overwhelming evidence” that Cuomo, 67, undercounted the total number of deaths in New York senior care facilities by 46%, during an audit in July 2020.

Cuomo insisted during the hearing that he had not drafted, reviewed or consulted on the nursing home report, which was published by the New York State Department of Health.

Comer referred Cuomo for prosecution last year, but was denied by former Attorney General Merrick Garland. The House GOP-led panel renewed that prosecution effort last month.

“Governor Cuomo testified truthfully to the best of his recollection about events four years earlier, and he offered to address any follow-up questions from the subcommittee — but from the beginning this was all transparently political,” Rich Azzopardi, a spokesperson for Cuomo, said Tuesday in a statement as he denied knowledge of the investigation.

“We have never been informed of any such matter, so why would someone leak it now? The answer is obvious,” Azzopardi said. “This is lawfare and election interference plain and simple — something President Trump and his top Department of Justice officials say they are against.”

On Tuesday, Voices for Seniors applauded the investigation, in a post on X, adding it was “overdue.”

“After years of silence, deflection and political spin, the wheels of justice are finally beginning to turn,” the group said. “This investigation is not just justified, it’s overdue. The evidence paints a damning picture of a leader more concerned with image than integrity. Grieving families have waited long enough.”

“We call on the DOJ to pursue this case with relentless urgency. Voices for Seniors stands prepared to cooperate fully.”

1 of 2 | The U.S. Department of Justice on charged Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-N.J., with counts related to “assaulting, impeding and interfering with law enforcement” during a demonstration at an ICE facility. File Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo

May 20 (UPI) — The U.S. Justice Department charged Rep. LaMonica McIver in connection with her alleged actions during an incident at a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in her congressional district.

U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey Alina Habba made the announcement via an X post that stated McIver, D-N.J., has been charged with counts related to “assaulting, impeding and interfering with law enforcement.”

The charges stem from a confrontation that occurred earlier on May 9 at the Delancey Hall ICE detention prison in Newark. McIver, along with fellow New Jersey Democratic Reps. Rob Menendez and Bonnie Watson Coleman attempted to reportedly inspect the facility where as many as 1,000 undocumented migrants are being held.

McIver, Menendez and Watson Coleman, as well as Democratic Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, were allegedly involved in a physical confrontation between demonstrators and ICE agents. Baraka was arrested at the scene and charged with trespassing, a misdemeanor, but Habba noted in the press release the charge against him has since been dropped “for the sake of moving forward.”

Habba further explained she has invited Baraka to tour Delancy Hall.

However, she alleged that McIver “assaulted, impeded and interfered with law enforcement,” and “that conduct cannot be overlooked.” She also claimed she has “persistently made efforts to address these issues without bringing criminal charges,” and has given McIver “every opportunity to come to a resolution, but she has unfortunately declined.”

The statement did not mention if there is any intention to take McIver into custody.

McIver also released a statement Monday, in which she said she and the other Representatives present “were fulfilling our lawful oversight responsibilities, as members of Congress have done many times before,” and that the “visit should have been peaceful and short.”

Instead, she alleged, “ICE agents created an unnecessary and unsafe confrontation when they chose to arrest Mayor Baraka.”

“The charges against me are purely political — they mischaracterize and distort my actions and are meant to criminalize and deter legislative oversight,” she said. “This administration will never stop me from working for the people in our district and standing up for what is right. I am thankful for the outpouring of support I have received and I look forward to the truth being laid out clearly in court.”

THE family of a chef who was killed in the Bayesian superyacht tragedy want justice for his death, a report claims.

Recaldo Thomas, 59, was among the seven people who died after Brit billionaire Mike Lynch’s yacht sank off the coast of Sicily during a storm last year.

9

9

9

Recaldo’s family are now seeking compensation for his tragic death – and they could be in line for a $40 million payout.

The chef’s sister-in-law Joycelyn Palmer told MailOnline: “We just want justice and yes, we will be looking at compensation, someone must pay for what happened.”

Last week a report detailing the “vulnerability” of the yacht revealed how the tragedy unfolded.

A thorough investigation has shown that the ship was likely knocked over by “extreme wind” and was not able to recover.

But Palmer believes the yacht’s 236ft mast may have also played a part in the tragic sinking.

Recaldo’s sister-in-law said: “I looked up the yacht and when I saw the mast I just thought that must have something to do with what happened.

“You can even see it in one of the last pictures he sent us.”

She also claimed the crew were at fault as they had taken the weather for granted and didn’t alert the captain until it was “too late”.

Palmer recalled the emotional turmoil the family experienced in the aftermath of the tragedy.

She said it took six long weeks to get Recaldo’s body, meaning they were unable to have an open-casket funeral and say their goodbyes properly.

Palmer described her brother-in-law as a lovely man who had a heart of gold and an infectious smile.

The family’s lawyer said they were looking at a US lawsuit against “various entities”.

They added that a $40million pay-out would not be out of the question for the “emotional loss”.

Recaldo was among seven passengers who died when the 184ft yacht capsized and sank on August 19.

9

9

Anchored off the coast of Porticello Harbour in Palermo, a downburst of stormy winds hit the boat causing it to topple.

It sunk to the sea floor in minutes and prompted a huge five-day search operation with specialist divers, underwater drones and helicopters.

Recaldo was found dead near the wreck site on August 19, but it took several more days to recover six missing guests including the Brit billionaire and his daughter.

New York lawyer Chris Morvillo and wife Neda also died, as did Morgan Stanley international chairman Jonathan Bloomer and his wife Judy.

Just two months before the disaster, Lynch had been cleared of carrying out a massive fraud over the sale of his software firm Autonomy to Hewlett-Packard in 2011.

The boat trip was a celebration of his acquittal in the case in the US.

9

9

An interim report by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch revealed last week that the yacht had a “vulnerability” to lighter winds which the owner and crew may not have known about.

Andrew Moll, chief inspector of marine accidents, said: “The findings indicate that the extreme wind experienced by Bayesian was sufficient to knock the yacht over.

“Further, once the yacht had heeled beyond an angle of 70° the situation was irrecoverable.

“The results will be refined as the investigation proceeds, and more information becomes available.”

The salvage operation for the superyacht is officially underway.

Floating cranes, remote-controlled robots, and specialist divers amongst other marine experts are all helping to recovery the vessel.

But the operation had to be put on pause just days after it started when a diver died.

The diver, who is thought to be a Dutch national, reportedly died when working 160ft below the ocean alongside other recovery workers to cut the boom of the yacht.

9

9

After an unsuccessful attempt trying to cut the section, the divers are believed to have used a blow torch.

Local media speculated that the man was hit by part of the cut boom as it came off whilst he was underwater.

But police said they have launched a probe to understand what exactly caused the man’s death.

According to other local media reports, an underwater explosion was heard by at least one person before the man was found dead.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday told conservative judges in Texas they must offer a hearing to detained Venezuelans whom the Trump administration wants to send to a prison in El Salvador.

The justices, over two dissents, rebuked Texas judges and Trump’s lawyers for moving quickly and secretly on a weekend in mid-April to put these men on planes.

That led to a post-midnight order from the high court that told the administration it may “not remove any member of the putative class of detainees.” The administration had argued it had the authority to deport the men as “alien enemies” under a wartime law adopted in 1798.

On Friday, the court issued an unusual eight-page order to explain their earlier decision. In doing so, the justices faulted a federal judge in Lubbock, Texas, and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals for taking no action to protect the due process rights of the detained men.

The order carries a clear message that the justices are troubled by the Trump administration’s pressure to fast-track deportations and by the unwillingness of some judges to protect the rights to due process of law.

On a Saturday in mid-March, Trump’s immigration officials sent three planeloads of detainees from Texas to the maximum-security prison in El Salvador before a federal judge in Washington could intervene. The prisoners included Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man who had an immigration order that was supposed to protect him from being sent back to his native El Salvador.

Afterward, Trump officials said the detained men, including Abrego Garcia, could not be returned to this country. They did so even though the Supreme Court had said they had a duty to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return.

The same scenario was nearly repeated in mid-April, but from a different prison in Texas.

ACLU lawyers rushed to file an emergency appeal with U.S. District Judge James Hendrix. They said some of the detained men were on buses headed for the airport. They argued they deserved a hearing because many of them said they were not members of a crime gang.

The judge denied the appeals for all but two of the detained men.

The 5th Circuit Court upheld the judge’s lack of action and blamed the detainees, saying they gave the judge “only 42 minutes to act.”

The Supreme Court disagreed with both on Friday and overturned a decision of the 5th Circuit.

“A district court’s inaction in the face of extreme urgency and a high risk of serious, perhaps irreparable consequences” for the detained men, the justices wrote. “Here, the district court’s inaction — not for 42 minutes but for 14 hours and 28 minutes — had the practical effect of refusing an injunction to detainees facing an imminent threat of severe, irreparable harm.”

“The 5th Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in the context of removal proceedings. Procedural due process rules are meant to protect” against “the mistaken or unjustified deprivation of life, liberty, or property,” the majority said. “We have long held that no person shall be removed from the United States without opportunity, at some time, to be heard.”

Justices Samuel A. Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented last month, and they did the same on Friday.

May 14 (UPI) — The European Court of Justice Wednesday ruled there was no plausible reason to block The New York Times from getting European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s texts with a Pfizer executive.

The commission blocked the texts from being released to the newspaper, claiming it did not hold them.

“The Commission decision refusing a journalist of The New York Times access to the text messages exchanged between President von der Leyen and the CEO of Pfizer is annulled,” the court ruling said.

The court said Matina Stevi, a journalist with The New York Times, requested access to all text messages between von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla between Jan. 1, 2021, and May 11, 2022.

The texts were secret messages before a multi-billion-dollar vaccine deal was reached between the European Union and Pfizer.

The commission rejected the request for the texts on the grounds that the commission did not hold the requested documents.

But the court ruling said Stevi and The New York Times “succeeded in rebutting the presumption of non-existence and of non-possession of the requested documents.”

The court added that the commission “has not given a plausible explanation to justify the non-possession of the requested documents.”

The court found the commission should have provided a more detailed explanation on why the documents were withheld.

The commission has the right to appeal the decision.

“The commission will now closely study the General Court’s decision and decide on next steps. To this effect, the Commission will adopt a new decision providing a more detailed explanation,” it said in a statement.

“Transparency has always been of paramount importance for the commission and President von der Leyen. We will continue to strictly abide by the solid legal framework in place to enforce our obligations.”

HEC Paris Business School law professor Alberto Alemanno said the court decision would enhance accountability for EU leaders.

“This judgment provides a fresh reminder that the EU is governed by the rule of law, with its leaders subject to the constant scrutiny of free media and of an independent court,” Alemanno said.

Dutch MEP Raquel Garcia Hermida-van der Walle called the court decision a “slam dunk for transparency.”

“People just want and are allowed to know how decisions are made, it is essential in a democracy. Even if it was done over a text message,” she said.

A MAN accused of beating a florist to death has been cleared in the UK’s longest-ever miscarriage of justice.

Peter Sullivan was jailed for life with a minimum of 16 years in 1987 for the murder of 21-year-old Diane Sindall in Bebington, Merseyside.

2

2

The loner, who was 29 at the time, has spent the past 38 years maintaining his innocent and is now appealing his conviction for a third time.

It comes after new tests ordered by the Criminal Cases Review Commission revealed his DNA was not present on samples preserved at the time.

His lawyers said that if his conviction is quashed, he would be the longest-serving victim of a miscarriage of justice in the UK.

The Crown Prosecution Service today told the Court of Appeal the new evidence is enough to cast “sufficient” doubt on the conviction.

It also agreed the fresh clue was “reliable” and that the CPS “does not seek to argue that this evidence is not capable of undermining the safety of Mr Sullivan’s conviction”.

Duncan Atkinson KC, for the CPS, said: “The respondent considers that there is no credible basis on which the appeal can be opposed, solely by reference to the DNA evidence.

“On the contrary, the DNA evidence provides a clear and uncontroverted basis to suggest that another person was responsible for both the sexual assault and the murder.

“As such, it positively undermines the circumstantial case against Mr Sullivan as identified at the time both of his trial and his 2021 appeal.”

Diane had just left her shift as a part-time barmaid at a pub in Bebington when her small blue van ran out of petrol.

She was making her way to a garage when she was beaten to death and sexually assaulted in a “frenzied” attack.

Her body was discovered partially clothed close to a grass verge.

Sullivan, who is watching the appeal from HMP Wakefield, was said to have spent the day of the murder drinking heavily.

Following his arrest in September 1986, he was quizzed 22 times and denied legal advice in the first seven interviews – despite requesting it.

Sullivan later “confessed to the murder” in an unrecorded interview a day after his arrest.

He then made a formal confession but the court was told this was “inconsistent with the facts established by the investigation“.

It also went against his earlier interviews, with Sullivan retracting the admission later that day.

Since his conviction, questions have been raised about whether he had proper legal representation during his interviews.

Evidence related to bite marks on Diane’s body has also been called into question.

At the time of the case, DNA technology was not available and subsequent requests for new tests were refused.

Sullivan first went to the CCRC for help in 2008 but they did not refer the sentence to the Court of Appeal.

He then launched his own appeal bid in 2019, which judges dismissed after ruling the bite mark evidence was not central to the prosecution at trial.

In 2021, Sullivan went back to the CCRC and raised concerns over police interviews, the bite mark evidence and the murder weapon.

The independent body revealed Sullivan’s DNA was not present on samples preserved at the time.

This led Merseyside Police to confirm they were “carrying out an extensive investigation in a bid to identify who the new DNA profile belongs to”.

The force revealed they had no matches on the police database but were contacting people previously identified in the original probe to request new samples.

Sullivan’s barrister Jason Pitter KC today told the court that Diane’s murder was “a grotesque offence”.

But he argued that the evidence could not now pass “the threshold with which a prosecution could take place”.

While he accepted that improvements in science and the “passage of time” had “significantly assisted” Sullivan’s position, the new DNA evidence showed the killer “was not the defendant”.

He also explained the bite mark evidence, which the prosecution claimed matched Sullivan, was no longer viewed as reliable evidence of identification in criminal cases.

Mr Pitter told the court “significant admissions” and “incriminating statements” made by Sullivan at the time of the killing were “inherently unreliable” due to his “vulnerability”.

He added: “The appellant was extremely vulnerable in an interrogative situation, because of his limited intellectual functioning, combined with his problems with self-expression, his disposition to acquiesce, to yield, to be influenced, manipulated and controlled and his internal pressure to speak without reflection and his tendency to engage in make-believe to an extreme extent.

“What he was saying was nonsense, in plain terms.”