legal

NEW YORK — The Senate’s top Democrat urged his colleagues Monday to take legal action over the Justice Department’s incremental and heavily redacted release of records pertaining to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Minority Leader Chuck Schumer introduced a resolution that, if passed, would direct the Senate to file or join lawsuits aimed at forcing the Justice Department to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the law enacted last month that required disclosure of records by last Friday.

“Instead of transparency, the Trump administration released a tiny fraction of the files and blacked out massive portions of what little they provided,” Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement. “This is a blatant cover-up.”

In lieu of Republican support, Schumer’s resolution is largely symbolic. The Senate is off until Jan. 5, more than two weeks after the deadline. Even then, the resolution will likely face an uphill battle for passage. But it allows Democrats to continue a pressure campaign for disclosure that Republicans had hoped to put behind them.

The Justice Department said it plans to release records on a rolling basis by the end of the year. It blamed the delay on the time-consuming process of obscuring victims’ names and other identifying information. So far, the department hasn’t given any notice when new records arrive.

That approach angered some accusers and members of Congress who fought to pass the transparency act. Records that were released, including photographs, interview transcripts, call logs, court records and other documents, were either already public or heavily blacked out, and many lacked necessary context.

There were few revelations in the tens of thousands of pages of records that have been released so far. Some of the most eagerly awaited records, such as FBI victim interviews and internal memos shedding light on charging decisions, weren’t there.

Nor were there any mentions of some powerful figures who’ve been in Epstein’s orbit, like Britain’s former Prince Andrew.

Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche on Sunday defended the Justice Department’s decision to release just a fraction of the files by the deadline as necessary to protect survivors of sexual abuse by the disgraced financier.

Blanche pledged that the Trump administration would meet its obligation required by law. But he stressed that the department was obligated to act with caution as it goes about making public thousands of documents that can include sensitive information.

Blanche, the Justice Department’s second-in-command, also defended its decision to remove several files related to the case from its public webpage, including a photograph showing Donald Trump, less than a day after they were posted.

The missing files, which were available Friday but no longer accessible by Saturday, included images of paintings depicting nude women, and one of a series of photographs along a credenza and in drawers. In that image, inside a drawer among other photos, was a photograph of Trump, alongside Epstein, Melania Trump and Epstein’s longtime associate, Ghislaine Maxwell.

Blanche said the documents were removed because they also showed victims of Epstein. Blanche said the Trump photo and the other documents will be reposted once redactions are made to protect survivors.

“We are not redacting information around President Trump, around any other individual involved with Mr. Epstein, and that narrative, which is not based on fact at all, is completely false,” Blanche told NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Blanche said Trump, a Republican, has labeled the Epstein matter “a hoax” because “there’s this narrative out there that the Department of Justice is hiding and protecting information about him, which is completely false.”

“The Epstein files existed for years and years and years and you did not hear a peep out of a single Democrat for the past four years and yet … lo and behold, all of a sudden, out of the blue, Senator Schumer suddenly cares about the Epstein files,” Blanche said. “That’s the hoax.”

Sisak and Neumeister write for the Associated Press. AP reporter Kevin Freking in Washington contributed to this report.

Dec. 17 (UPI) — The government of President Rodrigo Paz said it will push to revise Bolivia’s legal framework for coca leaf cultivation after official data showed that planted areas exceed authorized limits and continue to expand.

According to the 2024 Coca Crop Monitoring Report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, presented in La Paz, Bolivia ended 2024 with about 34,000 hectares of coca crops, a 10% increase from the previous year.

That figure exceeds by 12,000 hectares the cap set by the 2017 General Law of Coca, which authorizes 22,000 hectares for legal cultivation.

Coca leaf is recognized in Bolivia’s Constitution for traditional, medicinal and cultural uses, but part of the production is diverted to cocaine manufacturing, the report said.

Earlier this month, the World Health Organization decided to keep coca leaf on its list of controlled substances, citing the risk to public health posed by its easy conversion into cocaine.

Against that backdrop, the Office on Drugs and Crime urged the Paz administration to strengthen control strategies, particularly in protected areas, and to update data on domestic demand for licit consumption.

Vice Minister for Social Defense and Controlled Substances Ernesto Justiniano said the government plans to amend the law, but said new parameters will depend on a fresh study to determine how much coca is needed for traditional use in Bolivia, according to local newspaper El Deber.

“Bolivia has more coca than it needs for traditional uses. Crops have not stayed at 22,000 hectares. By 2024, they were at 34,000, and in the next report, we will probably be close to 40,000 hectares because very little was eradicated this year — barely 1,700 hectares,” Justiniano said.

He said he recalled a study released in 2013 estimated that 14,700 hectares were sufficient for legal consumption, but that the limit was raised to 22,000 hectares in 2017 — a decision the new government now questions as lacking “technical justification,” the outlet ERBOL reported.

At the same time, the government said the eradication of illegal coca crops will again become a central pillar of its anti-drug strategy, with a focus on what it calls surplus production feeding drug trafficking.

To prepare the new study on domestic demand for coca leaf, authorities said they will invite representatives from coca-growing groups, academic institutions and other sectors to ensure transparency of the data.

Officials expect that once the findings are released, negotiations will begin with coca growers from the Chapare, a coca-producing region in central Bolivia.

Justiniano said farmers there blocked eradication efforts this year, mainly in the tropical Cochabamba region, an area widely regarded as the political stronghold of former President Evo Morales.

Dec. 17 (UPI) — There are no legal or national security justifications for the Trump administration’s attacks on ships in the eastern Pacific and Caribbean Sea, Sen. Chris Murphy said following a bipartisan classified briefing on the strikes.

At least 95 people have been killed in 25 military strikes on ships the Trump administration accuses of being used by drug cartels and gangs designated as terrorist organizations since Sept. 2.

The strikes have drawn mounting domestic and international condemnation and questions over their legality by both Democratic and Republican lawmakers.

The administration defends the strikes as legal under both U.S. and international law, arguing the United States is at war with the drug cartels who are flooding the country with deadly substances.

State Secretary Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth held a classified briefing on the strikes with members of Congress on Tuesday, with many Democrats, including Murphy, D-Conn., calling foul.

“While I obviously can’t tell you any classified information I learned, I can tell you this: that the administration had no legal justification for these strikes, and no national justification for these strikes,” Murphy said in a video posted to his X account.

On the national security front, the administration admitted to the lawmakers that there is no fentanyl coming to the United States from Venezuela and the cocaine that is coming from Venezuela is mostly going to Europe, he said.

“And so we are spending billions of your taxpayer dollars to wage a war in the Caribbean to stop cocaine from going from Venezuela to Europe,” he said. “That is a massive waste of national security resources and of your taxpayer dollars.”

On the legal front, the administration is justifying the strikes by stating they are targeting gangs and cartels that the Trump administration has designated as terrorist organizations.

Since February, President Donald Trump has designated 10 cartels and gangs as terrorist organizations, with Clan de Golfo blacklisted on Tuesday.

Murphy said that while the president has the power to designate groups as terrorist organizations, it does not give him the ability to carry out military strikes targeting them.

“A designated ‘terrorist organization’ allows the president to impose sanctions on those organizations and individuals,” he said. “Only Congress, only the American public, can authorize war. And there’s just no question that these are acts of war.”

SIMON Cowell could be locked in another copyright row after it emerged a group of British rockers also share the same name as his newly formed group.

Tattooed Scottish band December Tenth told the music mogul to get his lawyers to call them over the name dispute.

This week Netflix announced his new show Next Act will feature his latest band – December 10.

The seven-piece group – which conissits of Nicolas Alves, 16, Cruz Lee-Ojo, 19, Hendrik Christoffersen, 19, John Fadare, 17, Josh Olliver, 17, Danny Bretherton, 16, and Seán Hayden, 19 – released their new music earlier this week.

But they have an unexpected rivalry in the form of the Glasgow-based metallers, who are named after the date their pen pal was executed on death row.

They have challenged Simon after he and Netflix announced the new boy band with a very similar name to their group.

READ MORE ON SIMON COWELL

SI’S NEXTFLIX

Simon Cowell’s new band December 10 set for new doc about first crack at fame

POP SENSATION

Watch Simon Cowell’s new boyband December 10’s debut video Bye Bye Bye

In a post on social media the lead singer of the band said: “It came to light over the last few days that Simon Cowell, Netflix and Universal Music, are involved in a new boy band that share, to some extent, our name December Tenth.

“Now if anyone in Simon’s team, Universal or Netflix, would like to get in touch with ourselves and our legal team they can do so.

“I would like to point out, the hundreds of new followers we have over the last few days are most welcome, but I’m not entirely sure they are all genuine.”

The band, who formed in 2020, have also been swamped with messages with confused boy band fans who mistakenly followed them online.

He added: “Our social media accounts have blew up and we had no idea why. It turns out that Simon Cowell has released a new Netflix show, called “December 10”.

“We are now being inundated with well wishes from fans of the show thinking we are that band.”

It’s not the first time Simon has faced issues over a pop group’s name.

In 2011 X Factor was forced to change their girl band Rhythmix to Little Mix after a disabled children’s charity in Brighton with the same name threatened them with legal action.

The United States has ended temporary legal protections for thousands of Ethiopian nationals, ordering them to leave the country within 60 days or face arrest and deportation.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced the decision on Friday, determining that conditions in Ethiopia “no longer pose a serious threat” to returning nationals despite ongoing violence in parts of the country.

The move affects approximately 5,000 refugees who fled armed conflict and is the latest action in the administration’s hardline crackdown to remove legal protections from at least one million people across multiple countries.

The termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Ethiopia takes effect in early February 2026, giving current beneficiaries two months to either leave voluntarily or find another legal basis to remain in the United States. Those who force authorities to arrest them “may never be allowed to return,” according to a Department of Homeland Security statement.

The decision comes despite the State Department’s own travel advisory for Ethiopia, which urges Americans to “reconsider” travel to the country due to “sporadic violent conflict, civil unrest, crime, communications disruptions, terrorism and kidnapping”.

The advisory, still in effect, warns that multiple regions remain off-limits and that the US embassy is “unlikely to be able to assist with departure from the country if the security situation deteriorates”.

Federal authorities justified the termination by citing peace agreements signed in recent years, including a 2022 ceasefire in Tigray and a December 2024 deal in Oromia. Analysts have also warned of the risk of renewed fighting between Ethiopia and Eritrea.

The Federal Register notice acknowledged that “some sporadic and episodic violence occurs” but claimed improvements in healthcare, food security and internal displacement figures demonstrated the country’s recovery.

However, the notice also cited national interest concerns, including Ethiopian visa overstay rates that exceed the global average by more than 250 percent and unspecified national security investigations involving some TPS holders.

The Ethiopian termination is part of a broader pattern under President Donald Trump, whose administration has moved to end protections for nationals from Haiti, Venezuela, Somalia, South Sudan and other countries since returning to office.

His administration has dismissed many nations as “Third World” countries, a term largely no longer used given its pejorative impetus for developing nations.

Over the past two weeks, Trump has escalated inflammatory racist attacks on Minnesota’s large Somali community in particular, including calling Somali immigrants “garbage” and directing a surge of ICE agents into the state, alarming residents and drawing criticism.

As of March 2025, approximately 1.3 million people held TPS in the United States, according to the American Immigration Council, a Washington-based research and advocacy organisation.

Trump has identified immigration control as central to his national security strategy, with the document published this month describing migration policies in Europe and elsewhere as contributing to what they term “civilizational erasure,” a far-right theory which is has been comprehensively debunked.

The approach has drawn sharp criticism for its racial selectivity. While terminating protections for Ethiopians who fled documented armed conflict, the administration simultaneously opened a refugee resettlement programme for white South Africans of Afrikaner ethnicity, claiming “race-based discrimination”. That discrimination has been rejected by the South African government and by numbers of Afrikaners themselves.

Scott Lucas, a professor of US and international politics at University College Dublin’s Clinton Institute, told Al Jazeera the contrast revealed a “perverse honesty” about the administration’s priorities.

“If you’re white and you’ve got connections you get in,” he said. “If you’re not white, forget about it.”

Legal challenges have mounted against several TPS terminations, with courts temporarily blocking some decisions.

Ethiopian TPS beneficiaries can continue working during the 60-day transition period, but after the deadline, anyone without an alternative legal status becomes subject to immediate arrest and removal.

The administration has offered what it calls a “complimentary plane ticket” and “$1,000 exit bonus” to those who depart voluntarily using a mobile app to report their departure.

I recall how, when I was still teaching EU law at ULB, I used to point to Article 122 TFEU with a certain pride bordering on mischief. “Students,” I would say, “we always complain that the treaties leave us powerless in a crisis—but look, quietly hidden in plain sight, there is this little Swiss-army-knife provision that lets the Council act fast, by qualified majority, in a spirit of solidarity, when severe economic difficulties arise.” I presented it as one of the smartest pieces of constitutional engineering in the entire treaty. Today, I am no longer so proud.

The European Commission is now invoking that very Article 122(1) TFEU in December 2025 to make the immobilization of €210 billion of Russian central bank assets permanent and to transform them into collateral for massive loans to Ukraine. Yet Article 122 is an economic-policy tool—not a foreign-policy or sanctions instrument. Freezing a third country’s sovereign reserves is, by definition, a restrictive measure governed by Article 215 TFEU, which requires unanimity under the CFSP.

The objective behind this legal switch is transparent: to bypass the vetoes of Hungary and possibly Slovakia. But this is a textbook evasion of the unanimity rule, the very type of maneuver the Court of Justice has repeatedly condemned—most famously in its 2012 ruling on sanctions against Zimbabwe.

Nor are the textual prerequisites of Article 122(1) even remotely satisfied. Its triggers—“severe difficulties in the supply of certain products, notably energy” or threats to the balance of payments—simply do not correspond to political inconvenience in renewing sanctions. And the Court has never equated a geopolitical stalemate with an “economic emergency.”

The Commission’s approach also stretches the Union’s powers far beyond their constitutional limits. The EU does not possess a general emergency competence and has no authority to adopt quasi-confiscatory measures against the central bank of a third state. Under customary international law, central-bank assets enjoy near-absolute immunity; using them as loan collateral without judicial process or a peace treaty amounts, in many experts’ view, to unlawful expropriation.

Such a precedent would be economically reckless. The ECB has repeatedly warned—if mostly behind closed doors—of the catastrophic effects this could have on the euro’s status as a reserve currency. The “without prejudice” clause in Article 122 does not grant it supremacy over more specific legal bases that deliberately require unanimity.

And even if one were to ignore these structural limits, the litigation risk is enormous. Should the Court annul the regulation—a highly probable outcome once Belgium files—the assets will need to be released, the loans will become illegal, and both the Union and Euroclear could face joint liability in the hundreds of billions.

For all these reasons, the overwhelming majority of independent EU and international-law scholars view the attempt to rely on Article 122(1) as legally indefensible. The political majority may still force the measure through in December 2025, but litigation is inevitable. When the action for annulment reaches Luxembourg, the court is likely to strike it down within one or two years. And in the process, my once-beloved Article 122—the provision I used to celebrate as a masterpiece of flexible, solidarity-driven drafting—may emerge severely damaged, perhaps permanently.

I never thought I would live to see the day when this provision would be twisted into what the Belgian Prime Minister has openly called “theft.” One further doctrinal point makes the misuse even clearer: Article 122(1) defines its object and purpose with remarkable precision. It authorizes Council action “in a spirit of solidarity between Member States” when Member States face severe economic difficulties. This solidarity clause is not decorative; the Court has repeatedly affirmed its binding nature.

A systemic reading reinforces this conclusion. Article 122(1) cannot be used to grant financial assistance—a power explicitly reserved for Article 122(2), which functions as a lex specialis. Measures under paragraph 1 therefore cannot include loans or any other form of financial aid, let alone the conversion of a third country’s frozen sovereign assets into collateral for a €100–200 billion lending operation to another third country. The Commission’s proposal is not merely constitutionally illegitimate for hijacking a CFSP sanction; it is textually impossible.

Recent developments only underscore the trend toward abusing Article 122 as a general crisis-financing mechanism. On 19 March 2025, the Commission proposed a Council regulation establishing the “SAFE instrument” (Security Action for Europe) to rapidly expand Europe’s arms industry. Although the proposal generically cites “Article 122 TFEU,” it is clear from its substance—providing financial assistance to Member States to support urgent, large-scale defense investments—that it relies on Article 122(2).

The SAFE regulation would mobilize €150 billion from the EU budget in the form of subsidies and subsidized loans for national defense projects. Since Member States may receive financial aid from the Union budget on account of severe difficulties only under Article 122(2), the proposal cannot be grounded in Article 122(1). Its explanatory memorandum invokes the “exceptional security context” and the need for “massive investments” in defense manufacturing—but these are political arguments, not legal ones.

Taken together, the Russian-assets plan and the SAFE proposal amount to a systematic attempt to transform Article 122 into a universal crisis and security financing clause—a purpose it was never designed to fulfill.

The European Parliament, while strongly supportive of assisting Ukraine, has raised alarm over this distortion of a 1957 economic-emergency provision, adopted in secret, by a qualified majority, without parliamentary scrutiny. When the case reaches Luxembourg, the Parliament will argue—rightly—that the Emperor has no clothes. And on current jurisprudence, the Court is likely to agree.

Article 122 allows the Council to legislate alone. That was grudgingly tolerated for €3 billion of extraordinary own resources during COVID. For €210 billion of another state’s sovereign assets in peacetime, it is constitutionally explosive.

The real motive remains the neutralization of Hungary’s veto in the CFSP. But the Court has annulled every previous attempt to launder a CFSP measure through a non-CFSP legal basis (see Case C-130/10). And while the war undeniably harms Europe’s economy, the Court has never accepted “we need to bypass a veto” as equivalent to an energy-supply crisis or a balance-of-payments emergency.

If the General Court or the ECJ strikes down the €150 billion defense fund for exceeding the scope of Article 122, then the Russian assets regulation—which is even further removed from classic economic policy grounds—has virtually no chance of surviving judicial review.

The Good Morning Britain presenter made a cheeky joke about legal action against his co-stars on The Celebrity Apprentice.

Good Morning Britain presenter Rob Rinder delivered a cheeky jibe at Lord Alan Sugar during his appearance on The Celebrity Apprentice.

The festive special is making a comeback with two episodes this Christmas, boasting a star-studded lineup including AJ Odudu, Angela Scanlon, Charlie Hedges, Eddie Kadi, Jake Wood, JB Gill, Kadeena Cox, Matt Morsia, Thomas Skinner, Sarah Hadland, and Shazia Mirza.

Competing to raise funds for BBC Children In Need, the celebrities have been challenged with creating their own gingerbread biscuits, with filming taking them to Lapland for the task.

Facing off against fellow TV personalities, a Gladiator, a former Apprentice contestant, and several actors, Rob stepped up as project manager for his squad.

Despite Lord Sugar’s reputation for reducing countless hopefuls to rubble over the years, the barrister showed no signs of intimidation, reports Wales Online.

Lord Sugar kicked things off by remarking: “It would be good if I knew any of you, I’ve got your CVs here.

“Rob, apart from guiding these people legally, what do you feel you might be able to bring in a business point of view?”

The GMB presenter shot back: “Well, I can feel the assets of the other team, I’m hoping.”

He subsequently confessed: “My strategy going into this is wit, and if that fails, I’ll be bringing legal action.”

Upon arriving at their destination, Rob’s banter became even sharper, delivering a pointed quip about Lord Sugar whilst maintaining his fearless approach.

Discussing his team, he remarked: “These are exceptional people, when you have a wealth of that talent and a wealth of that experience, the most important thing is to empower people to speak.”

He boldly declared: “We live or die together, but if we fail, I’ll be the first person to offer myself to be sacked to Lord Sugar.

“I’m not the least bit afraid of him, my grandma was more frightening than him.”

Lord Sugar, speaking about the return of The Celebrity Apprentice, previously revealed: “It’s the first ever time on The Celebrity Apprentice that the public can buy products that were created by the celebrity candidates. It’s added some real pressure to the process.

“I think the celebs thought they were in for an easy ride, but they were wrong! Raising money for BBC Children in Need is serious business, so the candidates really need to deliver if they want to avoid ending up on my naughty list.”

Kalpna Patel-Knight, Head of Entertainment Commissioning at the BBC, also chimed in: “The celebrity candidates will be giving viewers a tasty treat or two this Christmas that viewers can literally sink their teeth into, all while supporting the incredible work of BBC Children in Need. Are viewers going to be Team Gary the Penguin or Team Jolly McTrouble? Let the festive boardroom battle begin!”

Paul Broadbent, Director of Programmes at Naked, commented: “We have taken The Apprentice out of the boardroom and straight onto the shelves. These special episodes bridge the gap between entertainment and real-world impact. It is a rare opportunity for audiences to buy, taste and enjoy something they’ve watched being created on screen and it has been great fun seeing the celebs’ ideas come to life, all in aid of a fantastic charity.”

The Celebrity Apprentice airs on December 29 and 30 at 9pm on BBC One and iPlayer.