legal

Spain’s immigration scheme sees more than a million applications, with Latin Americans leading the numbers at 67 percent.

Almost 1.2 million undocumented migrants have sought legal status in Spain under a scheme that has defied a growing European crackdown on irregular immigration.

The government of Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, a standard-bearer of more open immigration policies, launched the vast plan in April while European neighbours toughen measures in response to pressure from ascendant far-right parties.

A total of 1,174,978 applications were submitted between mid-April and June 30 when the window closed, with more than 600,000 already being processed, Secretary of State for Migration Pilar Cancela told a news conference in Madrid on Thursday.

Latin America accounted for 67 percent of the submissions, with Colombia alone representing 25.9 percent of the total. African nationalities followed with 22.9 percent.

After Colombia, the most represented countries were Morocco at 13.3 percent, Venezuela with 11.8 percent and Peru at 8.8 percent.

An overwhelming majority of applicants were young, with eight out of 10 younger than 45 years old, while 57 percent of the total were males against 43 percent for females.

The application total does not necessarily indicate how many people will normalise their situation. According to government projections in April, there are about 500,000 potential beneficiaries.

Applicants must prove they have a clean criminal record and spent at least five consecutive months in Spain before January 1.

The authorities have three months to process their paperwork and decide whether to issue a work and residence permit valid only in Spain.

Sanchez has touted the benefits of immigration and the vast regularisation scheme for sectors such as construction that need to boost their workforce.

“Without immigration, Spain would lose 19 percent of its GDP by 2050,” Sanchez said on Tuesday during a presentation on migration. “And what does that mean in business terms? It means, for example, that 90,000 bars would have to close, that 50,000 primary and secondary classrooms would find themselves without students, and that around 220,000 farms would disappear.”

Without immigration, he added, Spain would be “poorer, emptier, weaker and without the resources to fund its welfare state”.

“Spain has never moved forward by building walls,” the prime minister said. “The only decent thing to do is extend a hand, not turn our backs on immigration.”

Spanish business leaders have welcomed the move, but the conservative and far-right opposition are furious about a policy they say will encourage more irregular immigration. Santiago Abascal, the leader of the far-right Vox party, slammed the scheme, calling it an “invasion”.

“More than a million strangers now competing with Spaniards for jobs, housing, daycare places, hospital beds, and social assistance. It’s an invasion. And it’s a betrayal,” Abascal said on X.

As CNN prepares for change under a new owner, the network’s chief legal affairs correspondent, Paula Reid, is heading for the exit and expected to jump to MS NOW.

The Washington-based Reid’s contract with CNN is up in several months and she has told the network she does not plan to renew. She is expected to sign on with CNN competitor MS NOW, according to people familiar with her plans who were not authorized to comment publicly.

A representative for MS NOW said the network does not comment on personnel matters but added, “as everyone in Washington knows, Paula Reid is an exceptional reporter, and any news organization would be fortunate to showcase her journalism.”

Reid‘s planned departure comes ahead of the impending merger of CNN parent Warner Bros. Discovery and Paramount. The combination has led to speculation over who will run CNN, and the uncertainty is said to have played a factor in Reid’s decision.

Reid joined CNN from CBS News in 2021.

CNN and Paramount’s CBS News will be combined after the merger, but the management structure is still under discussion. Paramount put Bari Weiss, founder of the heterodox digital news site the Free Press, in charge of CBS News in October, with a mandate to move the network’s coverage more to the political center. Based on the chaos that has ensued at CBS News under her watch, many CNN insiders are concerned over her possible stewardship of an even larger and more complex organization.

CBS News executives and on-air talent have pushed back at Weiss’ efforts to make changes at the division, which many insiders have viewed as an attempt to placate the Trump White House while Paramount seeks regulatory approvals needed ahead of closing the $111-billion Warner Bros. Discovery deal.

Internal resistance to Weiss has been strongest at the venerable news magazine “60 Minutes.” The program’s star correspondent Scott Pelley was fired last month after he confronted management over the dismissals of executive producer Tanya Simon and his on-air colleagues Sharyn Alfonsi and Cecilia Vega.

Weiss’ overhaul of the “CBS Evening News” with her handpicked anchor Tony Dokoupil has failed to improve the third-place program’s competitive position in the ratings. The program has also been criticized for some of its editorial decisions and logistical snafus.

CNN anchor Anderson Cooper has reportedly told colleagues he does not want to work for Weiss if the cable network is put under her purview. He already rejected an offer from Weiss to anchor the “CBS Evening News” and declined to renew his deal as a “60 Minutes” contributor after nearly two decades with the program.

The chaos at CBS has given pause to people at CNN. Larry Ellison, the tech billionaire and father of Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison, has reportedly promised Trump there will be sweeping changes to CNN after the merger.

Reid, 43, is among the many TV news correspondents and anchors that Trump has disparaged over the years, claiming they are unfair in their coverage. As White House correspondent for CBS News, Reid was known for asking tough questions of Trump during his White House briefings on the coronavirus.

Reid was a lawyer before becoming a journalist at CBS News in 2010. In addition to serving as White House correspondent for the network, she covered the Justice Department and the Supreme Court.

Reid would be another significant hire for MS NOW, the progressive-leaning channel that is rebuilding its roster after separating from NBC News and its parent, Comcast. The network formerly known as MSNBC is now part of Versant, a company with a stable of cable networks spun off by Comcast.

Peter Alexander, former chief White House correspondent for NBC News, is joining MS NOW as a morning anchor later this year. The network also hired former “CBS Mornings” executive producer Shauna Thomas as political director.

Good morning, and welcome to L.A. on the Record — our City Hall newsletter. It’s Noah Goldberg and David Zahniser, with an assist from Melissa Gomez and Connor Sheets, giving you the latest on city and county government.

The city of Los Angeles will shell out $120,000 for outside lawyers to fight a lawsuit filed by a councilmember challenging an ethics fine.

On Wednesday, the City Council voted unanimously to hire the law firm Hecker Fink LLP to represent the city’s Ethics Commission as it defends its decision to fine Councilmember John Lee $138,000 for allegedly violating city gift laws during a notorious 2017 trip to Las Vegas. Lee recused himself from the vote.

The city attorney’s office has said it can’t represent the Ethics Commission in Lee’s lawsuit because of a conflict of interest.

Lee was chief of staff to then-Councilmember Mitchell Englander when the two were plied with meals and alcohol, as well as hotel stays and gambling chips, by people seeking business with the city.

Lee, who represents the northwest San Fernando Valley, has claimed that he made a good faith effort to pay his own way. At a nearly $2,500 dinner that included Kobe beef, Maine lobster, Peking duck and sea bass, the only thing he ate was a spoonful of bird’s nest soup, he said at a hearing in his ethics case.

In 2020, Englander pleaded guilty to a single count of providing false information to the FBI and was sentenced to 14 months in prison. Three years later, he agreed to pay $79,830 to settle an Ethics Commission case focused on his own gift law violations.

The commission levied the fine against Lee in December, finding that he committed two counts of violating the city’s law against accepting gifts above a certain value, three counts of violating a law requiring that such gifts be disclosed to the public and five counts of misusing his city position.

David Tristan, the Ethics Commission’s executive director, had asked the council to provide at least $120,000 to defend against Lee’s lawsuit.

Lee declined to comment on the vote. In his lawsuit, he claimed that the statute of limitations had expired on the matters that were investigated by the Ethics Commission. He also accused the commission of overvaluing the share of gifts he partook in.

Lee is seeking to get the fine overturned.

More churn in the Karen Bass campaign

Turns out the shakeup in Mayor Karen Bass’ campaign did not end with the departure of Douglas Herman, her top strategist.

Herman told The Times on Wednesday that he stepped down due to “strategic differences” over the Nov. 3 runoff campaign against City Councilmember Nithya Raman. Bass’ team said on the same day that they had replaced him with Julie Chávez Rodriguez, who was campaign manager for the Joe Biden and Kamala Harris presidential campaigns in 2024.

A day later, political consultant Larry Grisolano confirmed that he too is no longer with the Bass reelection effort. His company, Thematic Campaigns, had been providing media and digital strategy.

On Friday, Berkeley-based research consultant Mike Rice told The Times that his firm, VR Research, had also left the Bass campaign, effective Wednesday. He declined to comment further.

Bass campaign spokesperson Alex Stack declined to discuss the departures. Asked if the campaign is in disarray, he said no, adding that Chávez Rodriguez’s hiring “is a really big get for us.”

“We’re getting a lot of positive feedback,” Stack said.

Still waiting on eviction defense contracts

In March, it appeared that a battle between City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto and the nonprofit running L.A.’s eviction defense program was over.

At the time, Feldstein Soto said she had concerns over awarding funds to the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, which has sued the city successfully over homelessness issues on multiple occasions. Feldstein Soto argued that contracts should not be awarded without rigorous reports and invoice review from Legal Aid and other nonprofits.

The City Council awarded the contracts anyway, funding the initial portion of a three-year, $177-million deal for Legal Aid and three other nonprofits to provide eviction defense, short-term rental assistance, tenant outreach and more as part of the city’s Stay Housed L.A. program.

But months later, Feldstein Soto’s office still hasn’t executed the contracts, frustrating tenants rights advocates and the nonprofits, which are struggling to pay their staff without the funds from the city.

“We’ve been really in a state of purgatory for over a year,” said Mike Dennis, senior director of housing justice at the Liberty Hill Foundation, which does tenant outreach as part of the city’s program.

Dennis said the failure to execute the contracts has created planning and operational uncertainty for the community-based organizations that Liberty Hill works with. Soon, some of them may face serious issues.

“We’re quickly approaching a point where the organizations are not going to keep being able to pay staff and absorb those costs,” he said. “The longer this goes on, the more likely we are to see contractions in the work.”

Earlier this month, Councilmember Ysabel Jurado put forward a motion asking the city attorney to explain why the contracts have not been executed. Jurado said the delay has left $17 million in funds unused.

“At the same time, the selected contractors struggle to maintain staffing without this funding, placing services for those at risk of homelessness in jeopardy,” she wrote in the June 2 motion.

Feldstein Soto argued in a June 15 response that Legal Aid has failed to agree to the “accountability and reporting requirements” needed to execute the contracts. She said those requirements were designed to make sure that taxpayer funds are spent properly.

“This office will continue to work with proposed contractors until the concerns are sufficiently addressed,” she said in a statement.

State of play

— UNHAPPY MEMORIES: Bass was out of town when the Boyle Heights warehouse fire erupted, which is giving voters a fresh reminder of her absence at the start of the Palisades fire. The situation could have an impact on her reelection campaign against Raman.

— HEADING TO THE BALLOT: A half-cent sales tax hike that would generate $345 million annually for the Los Angeles Fire Department will go before voters in the Nov. 3 election. The measure has been spearheaded by the city’s firefighter union, which gathered the signatures to qualify it for the ballot.

— D.A. DENIED: A judge has rejected Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman’s request to freeze payments in the $4-billion sex abuse settlement approved by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. The ruling boots Hochman from his brief stint in a civil courtroom as he moves forward with his criminal investigation into lawyers, recruiters and medical practitioners who may have submitted fraudulent claims.

— SOCIALIST SURGE: L.A.’s democratic socialists are looking to expand their power at City Hall yet again, setting their sights on the races for mayor and city attorney. Raman and city attorney hopeful Marissa Roy, both members of the L.A. chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, are heading into the runoff after strong showings in the June 2 primary. (DSA-LA endorsed Roy but not Raman in the primary.)

— A BLOWOUT ELECTION: Property owners across the city voted overwhelmingly against increasing the assessment they pay to maintain streetlights. City leaders had hoped to use the funds — an additional $80 million a year — to speed up repairs and upgrade the city’s 225,000 streetlights.

— CLEARING THE LAND: Overgrown lots razed by the Eaton and Palisades fires pose an increasing wildfire threat to surrounding properties. The county Board of Supervisors recently passed a motion calling on county departments to develop a plan to clear vegetation in Altadena and Sunset Mesa.

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature program to combat homelessness went to the area around the Wiltern Theatre in Koreatown this week. The area is represented by Councilmember Heather Hutt.
• On the docket next week: On Tuesday, the council takes up a package of ballot measures that would rewrite the City Charter. The changes cover topics such as voting rights for noncitizens, expanded park funding and City Council oversight of policies at the Los Angeles Police Department.

Stay in touch

That’s it for this week! Send your questions, comments and gossip to LAontheRecord@latimes.com. Did a friend forward you this email? Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Saturday morning.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Trump administration may end the Temporary Protected Status granted to more than 350,000 Haitians and Syrians whose home countries remain unsafe.

In a 6-3 decision, the court’s conservative majority said Congress gave the administration, not judges, the power to cancel or renew this temporary protection for non-citizens who are living and working here.

In a second win Thursday for the Trump administration, the court also upheld the administration’s policy of blocking asylum seekers at the southern border.

By the same 6-3 vote, the court said migrants do not have a right to apply for asylum if they are not already in the United States.

The decision on Temporary Protected Status could affect up to 1.3 million non-citizens who are in the country.

In 1990, Congress authorized this emergency humanitarian relief for non-citizens whose home countries were wracked by armed conflict, natural disasters or other extraordinary disruptions.

Under the law, the Department of Homeland Security may grant this protection for 6, 12 or 18 months and either renew or extend it for a similar period.

But this legal authority has been under dispute since Trump returned to the White House last year and targeted the 1.3 million people with TPS from 17 countries who were living in the United States.

Trump’s lawyers said the law made clear there was “no judicial review” of the government’s decision to cancel the grant of temporary protection.

However, immigrant rights lawyers argued the government failed in its duty to consult the State Department and assess whether it was safe for migrants to return home.

Repeatedly, U.S. district judges agreed with the challengers and ruled the administration’s decisions were “arbitrary” and unreasonable. But in nearly every case, the Supreme Court granted emergency appeals from the administration and set aside those orders.

Since TPS was created, the government has ended the protected designation for citizens of 18 countries.

DHS under then-Secretary Kristi Noem ended TPS for Honduras, Nicaragua, Afghanistan and Venezuela. A spokesperson for the agency previously said the Haiti designation became “a de facto amnesty program” and that allowing Syrians to remain is contrary to national interest.

Advocates for the immigrants argue that the administration failed to conduct the required process to properly evaluate each country’s conditions and instead acted on political grounds driven by racial animus.

State Department travel advisories for both countries warn people against traveling to either because of the risk of terrorism, kidnapping and widespread violence. But Federal Register notices announcing the terminations said country conditions had improved enough.

Recently released internal documents show that DHS decided to terminate protections for Haitians without any input from the State Department.

Citing the documents, which were obtained by the National TPS Alliance in a separate lawsuit, lawyers for the Haitians asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the case and send it back to lower courts. They argued that the justices should first consider the communications before issuing a decision.

Internal emails show that homeland security officials sought a recommendation from the State Department in May 2025, ahead of Noem’s early June deadline on whether to extend protections for Haiti. But by the time Noem signed what appears to be a final decision memo, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services had not received input from the State Department, the emails show.

“State recommendation for Haiti TPS has not come in despite of many outreach,” a homeland security deputy assistant secretary wrote in a June 2, 2025, email. A recommendation “would be helpful to have,” the person added.

Eleven days later, a USCIS project manager wrote in an email that Noem “recently elected to terminate Haiti without country conditions from DOS.”

USCIS initially recommended automatically extending protections before Homeland Security decided to terminate them, earlier versions of the memo indicate.

The June decision was blocked by a federal judge. In November, DHS issued another notice terminating TPS protections for Haitians.

That time, according a previously publicized email, a homeland security senior counselor asked a State Department official for the agency’s views on the country conditions in Haiti. The official, Spencer Chretien, didn’t address the country conditions but responded that “there would be no foreign policy concerns.”

Lawyers for the Haitians argued that response didn’t meet the legal standard for a sufficient consultation, though the Trump administration disagreed.

The bitter legal battle between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni over allegations of misconduct and retaliation tied to the making of “It Ends With Us” moved closer to a conclusion Friday after a federal judge ordered Baldoni and his production company to pay Lively’s attorneys fees related to his unsuccessful defamation lawsuit against her, while rejecting her bid for additional damages.

In a 47-page order, U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman found that Lively was entitled to recover legal fees under a California law intended to protect people who report sexual misconduct from retaliatory defamation claims, ruling that Baldoni’s side had failed to show she acted with malice when making her allegations.

But Liman denied Lively’s request for treble and punitive damages, concluding that the procedural mechanism her lawyers used permitted recovery of attorneys fees and costs but not broader financial penalties.

Lively’s attorneys, Esra Hudson and Michael Gottlieb, called Friday’s ruling a victory for their client and emphasized that the judge found “there was no evidence she acted with malice.”

“The Court is awarding Ms. Lively attorneys’ fees and costs and has explained that a prevailing defendant under Section 47.1 may seek damages using different procedural mechanisms,” the attorneys said in a statement. “The parties’ settlement agreement expressly preserves Ms. Lively’s rights to obtain those damages.”

While the judge rejected Lively’s request for additional damages in this particular motion, her legal team said she could still seek them through other legal avenues permitted under the statute.

Bryan Freedman, Baldoni’s attorney, sharply disputed Lively’s characterization of the ruling, arguing that the court’s prior decisions had substantially undercut many of her original claims.

“There was no sexual harassment. There was no retaliation. There was no smear campaign,” Freedman said in a statement. “The court recognized it, the record reflects it, and we have maintained it from the very beginning.”

The amount Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios ultimately may have to pay has not yet been determined. Lively’s lawyers must still submit billing records and fee calculations for court approval.

The ruling follows last month’s settlement between Lively and Baldoni, which came just before what had been expected to be a closely watched federal trial in Manhattan. Under that settlement, neither side received financial compensation. But the agreement preserved Lively’s ability to seek attorneys fees and damages under California Civil Code Section 47.1, a relatively new statute designed to shield sexual harassment and assault accusers from retaliatory defamation claims.

Lively sued Baldoni, Wayfarer Studios, Wayfarer CEO Jamey Heath and others in December 2024, alleging Baldoni and his associates orchestrated a coordinated effort to damage her reputation after she raised concerns about misconduct during production of the film, which Baldoni directed and co-starred in. Baldoni denied wrongdoing.

Baldoni and Wayfarer later filed a $400 million defamation suit against Lively, her publicist Leslie Sloane and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, that was dismissed last year. Friday’s ruling dealt specifically with whether Lively could recover attorneys’ fees and damages tied to that dismissed suit under California Civil Code Section 47.1.

The latest ruling comes after Liman earlier this year dismissed 10 of the 13 claims in Lively’s lawsuit, including sexual harassment and defamation claims, while allowing retaliation-related claims to proceed.

In Friday’s ruling, Liman wrote that Baldoni’s team had produced no evidence demonstrating Lively acted maliciously when making her allegations.

“Allegations are insufficient on their own to demonstrate that statements were in fact made with malice,” the judge wrote. “That determination requires some evidence.”

Friday’s ruling offered each side new grounds to claim vindication in a legal battle that has played out as much in public statements as in court filings. Lively’s team pointed to the judge’s finding that she acted without malice, while Baldoni’s attorneys emphasized that many of her original claims had been dismissed.

Still, the settlement agreement bars either side from appealing Liman’s ruling, potentially drawing one of Hollywood’s ugliest recent legal fights to a close.

WhatsApp disrupted phishing attempts linked to NSO, blacklisted by the US for security concerns.

Meta has said it is ⁠filing a federal US ⁠court contempt order against Israeli spyware firm NSO Group for violating a permanent injunction that barred it from ever ⁠targeting WhatsApp and its users.

The company said on Monday that its WhatsApp messaging service disrupted new spear phishing attempts linked to NSO, an ⁠entity blacklisted by the United States government for engaging in activities that are contrary to national security or foreign policy interests.

These attempts were similar to previous “1-click phishing campaigns”, aimed to trick users into clicking ‌malicious links and direct them to external websites, Meta said in a blogpost.

A “1-click” is a type of cyberattack where a single click on a malicious link or attachment is sufficient to compromise a victim’s device or account, without requiring them to enter their credentials.

Meta said WhatsApp took down test accounts ⁠and groups created by NSO on its platform. ⁠NSO did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.

Last year, a US court ordered NSO to stop targeting Meta’s WhatsApp, a development the spyware ⁠company warned could put it out of business.

While the ruling significantly reduced the punitive damages NSO ⁠owed Meta to $4m from an ⁠initial $167m, the injunction itself was seen as a substantial challenge for the company, which faces ongoing accusations of enabling human rights abuses through its Pegasus hacking tool.

Meta ‌said on Monday that last month it was joined by 12 prominent civil rights organisations, a coalition of security researchers, privacy advocates ‌and ‌digital rights experts, who filed their amicus briefs to fight NSO’s appeal against the permanent injunction.

Of the complaints made to the Citizens Advice Consumer Service, 42% involved all-inclusive packages abroad

More than four million people had problems with a package holiday in the past year, a survey for Citizens Advice suggests. The survey found 76% of adults had been on a package holiday before, and 34% of them had experienced a problem. Some 8% had suffered an issue within the last 12 months specifically, equating to an estimated four million travellers, it said.

The charity said it received about 14 complaints a day about package holidays, including issues such as unexpected changes to the hotel, denied refunds, and poor customer service. Of the 3,500 package holiday complaints made to the Citizens Advice Consumer Service in the past year, 42% involved all-inclusive packages abroad.

A third of complaints (33%) related to the quality of the holiday falling short of the agreed deal, such as hotels being misdescribed, bad food or unavailable facilities. Customer service failures made up 19% of complaints, including long waits on the phone, ignored complaints and administration errors made by firms.

As a result, one in four of those who experienced an issue with a package holiday (25%) said they suffered stress, anxiety or upset, while 17% had to pay extra for daily expenses. Citizens Advice encouraged holidaymakers to check what protections were included within their booking.

One complainant, Zorana, a semi-retired NHS doctor from north-east England, reported spending £6,300 on an all-inclusive, seven-night trip to Lanzarote with her daughter through a UK holiday operator. Torrential rain on the second day resulted in “nightmare” flooding, leaving hotel guests without electricity, water, food or internet.

However the woman said she received no on-site support from their operator, causing them considerable stress. Zorana, 66, said: “We spent the morning on the beach and planned the sauna for later. But when we were eating lunch the rain started and didn’t stop.

“By the time we got to the spa, the hotel told us we couldn’t go in because it was flooded. Half an hour later the electricity had gone. Without electricity, everything stopped. There was no more internet and no more water because the pumps were not working.

“We all gathered in the hotel lobby, to hear what was going on. It was the weekend and reps from all the other travel companies were there, talking with people, reassuring them, giving them information. Some were already distributed to other places. We asked, ‘Where is our rep?’ And we were told he doesn’t work on weekends.

“We were very angry. Hotel staff told us our travel company was always a problem and never helped people. We came home after five days and I started to chase the travel company for a refund. But the customer service adviser said they can’t deal with it because compensation was offered. But their offer was not adequate.

“I mentioned the lack of support, the delay, the value of the holiday, that I had to find and pay for another hotel, and because of this it was reasonable that they should give me all my money back. I feel a victim twice over because I had the stress of our holiday being ruined, and then months of trying to get compensation.”

Citizens Advice consumer spokeswoman Jane Parsons said: “Too often, people are left stressed and disappointed when their dream holidays are spoiled because they’re not getting what they paid for. To make matters worse, they’re having to spend a lot of time and effort trying to resolve issues, sometimes with no luck.

“A record of any issues that occur and evidence should be kept – like clear details of what went wrong and when, photos and receipts. If something goes wrong with your holiday you might be able to get compensation from the company you booked with. You should tell them about any issues as soon as possible – if you don’t say anything until you get home you might get less compensation, or none at all.”

Chartered Trading Standards Institute chief executive John Herriman said: “This research highlights the real impact poor practice in the travel sector can have on consumers, specifically the problems for consumers booking holidays online, particularly through social media.

Left out of pocket

“Too many people are left out of pocket or dealing with stress when holidays don’t meet what was promised. What should be a time to relax and unwind can turn into the opposite. While it’s vital consumers understand their rights, check the protections included and keep clear records if something goes wrong, businesses must meet their legal obligations and ensure they deliver the standard of service people have paid for – and resolve issues raised quickly.

“Strong consumer protection depends on both informed consumers and responsible traders.”

Consumers are entitled to compensation for a holiday if it was lower in value than the one booked, spending extra money was required because of a problem, a large part of the booked services were not provided, something goes wrong that causes distress or disappointment or if the holiday was completely ruined.

Yonder surveyed 2,018 adults between April 17-19 about their experiences with package holidays, including problems. Respondents were asked to exclude issues outside the operator’s control, like geopolitical events or natural disasters.

EXCLUSIVE: Scott Mills was axed from the BBC earlier this year after new evidence came to light about a historical alleged sexual offences – but this might not be the end of the former radio DJ

Axed star Scott Mills has seen a flurry of support this week as his husband Sam Vaughan returned to Instagram to mark their two-year anniversary.

In his first post since the DJ’s shock sacking, Sam posted a sweet picture of him and his husband from their wedding day, captioning the post with a white heart emoji and the words “2 years.”

Stars including Zoe Ball, Rylan Clark and Sara Cox reacted to the post, with former colleauge Zoe writing: “Love you,” in the comments, followed by four red heart emoji’s. Rylan and Sarah also posted hearts in the comments section.

It comes as the Mirror exclusively revealed that Scott is set to sue the BBC for unfair dismissal after his surprise sacking. The DJ has enlisted top lawyers to lodge a case against the BBC. It’s understood he will claim that he disclosed the full details of the cop probe – including the accuser’s age – to BBC Radio 1 bosses at the time.

The BBC has previously said that they knew about the investigation but that “new information” came to light which sources claim was the fact the accuser was under 16. But it’s understood Mills will argue that this was all raised at the time to Radio 1. A source said: “It’s going to get very messy indeed.”

Mills was interviewed by police in 2018 under caution after being accused of serious sexual offences against a boy under the age of 16. A full file was sent to the CPS, who said there was not enough evidence to charge him.

In April, Mills released a statement through his lawyers claiming he had been the subject of “rumour and speculation” since his sacking and that he had “co-operated fully” with the police investigation into the allegations.

As Scott gears up for a battle with the Beeb and his partner returns to social media, questions have been raised on when the DJ could make a career return. “I think Scott Mills’ route back into the spotlight will depend on whether the public see his departure as a temporary setback or as a sign that his broadcasting career has reached a crossroads,” Mayah Riaz, a PR to the stars, tells the Mirror.

“Historically, we have seen that established presenters who have a strong personal brands and years of goodwill behind them are often afforded a second act. This is especially true when they have built up a loyal audience and have industry support over many years,” she said.

The expert noted the significance of the public show of support towards Scott’s husband Sam as it highlights that the star still has a network of influential friends and colleagues who are willing to publicly stand by him. She said this can help “soften the narrative” and “remind people of the affection that exists for a personality.”

The DJ has lost a number of gigs since being axed by the BBC, including podcast roles on Race Across the World and Pop Top 10 with Rylan Clark. Mills was also dropped as a patron of children’s cancer charity Neuroblastoma UK and “stepped back” from his role as an ambassador for the MS Society UK.

His regular panto work, which reportedly made him £600,000 in the last three years, has also been cut. Imagine Theatre, which got Scott involved in Jack And The Beanstalk shows, said there are no plans to work with the presenter for the 2026/2027 season. It said the decision was taken before he was fired by the BBC.

If Scott was to make a comeback, Mayah suggests it won’t be through a “grand relaunch”. Instead, it could be through a project that reminds his audience why they connected with him in the first place.

She explained: “Talent and familiarity remain powerful currencies in broadcasting. It goes without saying that authenticity will be key. The public are increasingly sceptical of overly polished comeback campaigns and media-managed statements.”

Mayah says the public respond “far more positively to resilience, humility and genuine passion for the work” and the biggest mistake Scott Mills could make is to come across “desperate to reclaim the spotlight”. She added: “The strongest celebrity comebacks are those that give people something new to talk about.”

Mills previously issued a statement via lawyers thanking his well-wishers. He said: “I wish to thank from the bottom of my heart all those who have reached out to me with kindness, my former colleagues, and my beloved listeners, who I greatly miss.”

On the police probe, he said: “The recent announcement that I am no longer contracted to the BBC has led to the publication of rumour and speculation. In response to this the Metropolitan Police has made a statement, which I confirm relates to me.

“An allegation was made against me in 2016 of a historic sexual offence, which was the subject of a police investigation in which I fully co-operated and responded to in 2018.” He added: “Since the investigation related to an allegation that dates back nearly 30 years and the police investigation was closed seven years ago, I hope that the public and the media will understand and respect my wish not to make any further public comment on this matter.”

Zuffa Boxing’s first show in the UK, featuring Chris Billam-Smith, appears set to go ahead on Saturday despite legal action from rival promoter Boxxer.

Former WBO cruiserweight champion Billam-Smith is scheduled to fight Canadian Ryan Rozicki at the Bournemouth International Centre as the headline bout, with fellow Britons Jack Massey and Sam Hickey both on the undercard.

The event is due to be shown on Sky Sports, but promoter Boxxer claims to have contractual rights involving fighters on the bill and says they are appearing without “consent or authorisation”.

BBC Sport understands that Zuffa does not accept the claims by Boxxer and plans to proceed with the event as planned.

“Boxxer can confirm it is seeking urgent injunctive relief against Zuffa Boxing and Sky Sports concerning the promotion and proposed participation of fighters who remain subject to binding contractual obligations to Boxxer,” said a statement from Boxxer.

“Boxxer have ensured that all parties involved are fully aware of the contractual obligations owed to Boxxer by the fighters being promoted for Saturday’s event. Despite this, those fighters continue to be advertised and promoted without Boxxer’s consent.

“As a result of the conduct it has witnessed in recent months, Boxxer has been left with no option but to seek further relief from the English courts.”

Zuffa Boxing, which was founded by UFC president Dana White and backed by Saudi Arabian funding, is looking to rival the sport’s established promoters.

Billam-Smith signed a multi-fight deal with Zuffa Boxing in April after previously being promoted by Ben Shalom’s Boxxer.

Enrique Riquelme held up a Real Madrid shirt bearing Erling Haaland’s name, while campaigning for club presidency.

Manchester City is considering legal action after Real Madrid presidential ⁠candidate Enrique Riquelme ⁠said he would sign the Premier League club’s Norwegian striker Erling Haaland if elected.

Riquelme, a renewable energy entrepreneur challenging incumbent Florentino ⁠Perez, made the pledge during an appearance on Spanish television on Wednesday, where he held up a Real Madrid shirt bearing Haaland’s name.

“The stories which ⁠have emerged from Spain regarding the future of Erling Haaland are untrue,” a City spokesperson said on Thursday.

“There is no chance of this happening, and there is no contractual clause to enable it. We are considering legal action for ‌the use of our player’s image in this context.”

Riquelme said Haaland, who scored 38 goals in all competitions last season, had a release clause and wanted to move to the Spanish club, adding that he would make the transfer a priority if he wins Sunday’s election.

A joint statement from the 25-year-old footballer’s father, Alfie Haaland, and his agent, Rafaela Pimenta, swiftly ⁠rejected the suggestion, describing it as “not true”.

Riquelme added he ⁠would try to sign City’s Spain midfielder Rodri, saying he had spoken to the player’s agent and would “do everything possible” to bring the Ballon d’Or winner to Madrid.

The remarks come against ⁠the backdrop of Real’s presidential election, the first in two decades in which Perez is not running unopposed, ⁠after the club’s two seasons without a major ⁠trophy.

Voting is scheduled for Sunday, with some 100,000 club members eligible to take part.

Haaland had the option to join Real in 2022, when he left Borussia Dortmund. But he chose City, where ‌his father played.

While the striker, who won the Premier League Golden Boot for the third time in four seasons, said he would like to play ‌for ‌Real one day, there has been no suggestion he is unhappy at City. He signed a new nine-and-a-half-year contract in January 2025.

Perez announced on Wednesday that, should he be elected, he would bring Benfica manager Jose Mourinho back to Real Madrid for a second term at the helm of Los Blancos.

The Portuguese former manager of Manchester United, Chelsea and Inter Milan previously won the La Liga title during a three-year spell in Madrid.

Manchester City are contemplating taking legal action over a promise to sign striker Erling Haaland by a candidate in Real Madrid’s presidential election.

Enrique Riquelme – a renewable energy magnate who is challenging current president Florentino Perez for the position – unveiled a Real Madrid shirt bearing Haaland’s name while on television on Wednesday, saying: “He has a release clause and would like to join Real Madrid.”

A swift denial was issued in a joint statement by Haaland’s father and agent, before City rubbished the suggestion.

“The stories which have emerged from Spain regarding the future of Erling Haaland are untrue,” the statement read. “There is no chance of this happening and there is no contractual clause to enable it.

“We are considering legal action for the use of our player image in this context.”

More to follow.

Is Paramount making a Tony Soprano move?

David Ellison’s media company appears to be girding for a big battle with California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and fellow state attorneys general who may team up to file a lawsuit aiming to block Paramount’s proposed $111-billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery.

Last week, Paramount hired powerhouse antitrust attorney Jeffrey Kessler to help defend its proposed takeover of Warner, which owns CNN, TBS, HBO and the prestigious Burbank film and television studios.

Kessler — co-executive chairman of Winston & Strawn in New York — is one of the nation’s top antitrust lawyers. He most recently led the state attorneys’ case against concert promoter and ticketing firm Live Nation, resulting in a monumental win for the states, including California.

Now Kessler may be on the opposite side, potentially going after the government to help Paramount build a behemoth that would include CNN and CBS News, two historic film studios and four streaming services.

The states have not indicated whether they plan to go to court to block Paramount’s takeover of Warner, but Bonta has said Ellison’s proposed consolidation, which is widely expected to lead to layoffs, is problematic.

Paramount declined Tuesday to discuss Kessler’s remit. Kessler was not immediately available for comment.

Hiring an attorney who is more commonly aligned against big companies prompted at least one observer to postulate that Paramount could be angling to remove a big name from the legal chessboard to prevent him from joining the other side, in the vein of TV mob boss Tony Soprano.

During the HBO show’s fifth season, Soprano spent months consulting with top divorce attorneys, creating a potential conflict of interest that prevented those lawyers from representing his wife Carmela in the dispute.

Attorney Jeffrey Kessler arrives at federal court in Oakland in a file photo.

(Noah Berger/Associated Press)

Kessler also knows the ins and outs of a courtroom as well as antitrust settlements, which could benefit Paramount as it seeks to avoid a bruising court challenge.

More than 5,000 artists and other entertainment industry workers already have signed an open letter that urges Bonta to take action to upend the Paramount and Warner Bros. deal.

Ellison and his team have vowed to make $6 billion in cuts following the merger. The combined company would have to contend with $79 billion in deal debt.

Adding Kessler comes as state attorneys general have been taking a more aggressive role in waging anti-trust fights. Many believe the U.S. Justice Department has been sitting on the sidelines to allow deals favored by President Trump to sail through their legally mandated regulatory reviews.

Trump favors Paramount’s takeover of CNN and other Warner properties.

Paramount Chief Legal Officer Makan Delrahim has made several savvy tactical moves since joining Ellison’s Melrose Avenue firm last fall.

Delrahim, who was Trump’s antitrust chief during his first term, filed paperwork to win the U.S. Justice Department’s blessing in December — soon after Netflix had clinched the bidding war for Warner Bros.

Netflix ultimately bowed out of the auction in late February. And Delrahim’s move gave Ellison’s Paramount a head start in the regulatory approval process.

The company is waiting for confirmation that the Justice Department will consent to its Warner Bros. purchase. It is separately responding to issues raised by regulators in Europe.

It’s not clear when Bonta or his fellow attorneys general might decide whether to bring a case against Paramount, although the deadline is approaching because Ellison wants to get his deal wrapped up by September.

Attorneys general also could opt for negotiating a settlement agreement with Paramount, which might be willing to bend to concessions to get the deal approved.

Bonta is leading a challenge against another big merger — TV station owner Nexstar Media Group’s $6.2-billion purchase of rival company Tegna Inc. Nexstar owns KTLA-TV Channel 5 in Los Angeles and more than 100 other stations.

Nexstar initially argued that Bonta’s action came too late — after Nexstar had gained its federal approvals for the deal. Nexstar also was in the process of consolidating Tegna’s operations and top Tegna executives had cashed out.

The move backfired on Nexstar as a federal judge in Northern California issued a preliminary injunction, ordering Nexstar to halt the Tegna consolidation.

U.S. District Judge Troy Nunley ruled Tegna must be managed as a separate company pending the outcome of a trial.

On Tuesday, Tegna announced that it hired a former Fox TV station executive, Patrick Paolini, as its chief executive. Beginning next week, Paolini will be responsible for “Tegna’s daily operations, revenue-generating business strategies, local journalism and production, and growth initiatives,” according to a corporate statement.

Paolini will report to Tegna’s board — not Nexstar.

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Britain’s legal system has changed since 2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are lobbyists influencing the crackdown?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The BBC has shared cast details of an upcoming drama about a celebrity legal battle

The BBC has shared a major update on its upcoming drama about a celebrity legal battle that spirals out of control.

Described as “high-stakes, intoxicating and hugely entertaining”, Reputation was announced earlier this year.

But the broadcaster has now confirmed that filming is underway and that some huge stars have been added to the cast, including Rivals’ Emily Atack, Mad Men star Christina Hendricks and Naomie Harris from Skyfall.

The six-part series centres on Lena (Naomie), a formidable lawyer who gets pulled into the celebrity case of the decade representing global pop star Davina Knight (Christina).

A synopsis reads: “Reputation is an audacious and glossy new drama that shows what happens when a celebrity legal battle spirals out of control. After Davina releases a provocative new song accusing her ex-husband, Billy (Kyle Soller), of abusive behaviour and he retaliates in kind, their private breakdown erupts into a very public libel battle.

“The case is fought far beyond the courtroom, as PR machines are deployed, laws are bent and social media platforms become judge, jury and battleground – driving outrage for clicks and warping the truth.”

It goes on: “For Lena, the case puts her own personal life in the line of fire. How far will she go to win and at what cost? And for Davina, how far will she go to protect her reputation?”

Naomie said she was “hooked” from page one of Reputation, adding: “It’s so rare to read scripts with the wit and flair of Anya’s (creator and writer Anya Reiss) writing and I knew straight away that I wanted to play Lena.”

Christina added that Davina was “a fantastic, fierce character”.

Other cast members include The Crown’s Alex Jennings, David Gyasi from The Diplomat and Prime Target’s Alex Heath.

Lindsay Salt, director of BBC Drama, said when the series was announced: “Reputation is high-stakes, intoxicating and hugely entertaining, with a lot to say about the world.”

She added that in Elaine and Davina, Reiss “has created two lead characters for the ages”.

Reputation is set to air on BBC iPlayer and BBC One.

May 15 (UPI) — Texas Children’s Hospital plans to create the first “detransition clinic” in the United States as part of a settlement with the state for provided transgender care, officials announced Friday.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced the settlement, which will also require the hospital to fire and revoke the medical privileges of doctors, as well as pay a $10 million fine.

The hospital will make care at the clinic free of charge for its first five years and offer services for children to detransition to their gender assigned at birth.

Paxton investigated the Houston-based hospital in 2023 for the transgender care services it offered at the same time the state legislature was outlawing gender-affirming care for children.

“I applaud Texas Children’s Hospital for changing course and committing to being part of the solution by agreeing to form a first-of-its kind Detransition Clinic that will provide free care to those who have been victimized by twisted, morally bankrupt transgender ideology,” Paxton said in a statement.

The settlement, he said, is meant to reverse damage caused by “ideologically motivated physicians who harmed patients with their transition care, which the attorney general’s office alleged included the use of false diagnosis codes.

The hospital, in its own statement, said that it had spent the past three years cooperating with the investigation, “navigating an unconscionable campaign of mistrusts and mischaracterizations of gender affirming care.”

It said that multiple internal and external investigations support that the hospital has been compliant with all laws — before and after the state ban on transition care.

“Today, we made the difficult decision to settle with the Texas attorney general and the Department of Justice, closing a chapter that has been wrought with falsehoods and distractions,” the hospital said.

“To be clear — we are settling to protect our resources from endless and costly litigation,” it said. “This settlement will allow us to redirect those precious resources to focus on life-saving care and groundbreaking discoveries of our exceptional clinicians and scientists.”

BEIRUT — A dozen U.S. Democratic Senators have called for the U.S. Central Command to answer questions about American coordination with Israel in declaring broad “ evacuation zones ” in Lebanon and Iran, alleging that the practice may violate international law.

The letter underlines how the Democratic Party — both its leaders and the base — has grown increasingly critical of Israel.

Since the beginning of the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran and the latest Israel-Hezbollah war in Lebanon, the Israeli military has regularly issued maps covering large areas of territory along with warnings telling all residents of the zones to flee. Israel had previously used a similar approach in Gaza.

The senators said the sweeping warnings have “been used to permanently displace people and destroy homes and towns” and that some civilians who refused to leave their homes in the areas have been killed by subsequent strikes.

The 12 senators led by Vermont Sen. Peter Welch, in a letter dated May. 4 to CENTCOM chief Adm. Brad Cooper that was provided to The Associated Press, state that Israel’s practice of unilaterally declaring mass evacuation warnings in Lebanon and Iran “likely contravene international laws the United States has helped develop around humane warfare.”

The other signatories include senators Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Sen. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin.

The letter asked the CENTCOM chief whether U.S. forces have coordinated military targets with Israeli forces during the recent war with Iran, whether they provided assistance or intelligence helping Israel’s military to impose the evacuation zones in Lebanon and Iran, and whether CENTCOM signed off on U.S. military support for the targeting of people or infrastructure in the evacuation zones. It also asked whether the U.S. military has reviewed the legality of the practice.

The Israeli military declined to comment when asked about the letter. CENTCOM did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In the past, Israel has said the evacuation maps aim to keep civilians out of harm’s way. It says Hezbollah has positioned fighters, tunnels and weapons in civilian areas across southern Lebanon, from which it has launched hundreds of drones and missiles — without warning — into northern Israel.

A shift in the party stance

Observers said the move is part of a larger shift in the stance of Democratic Party leaders on U.S. military assistance to Israel. Democrats have also been critical of the Trump administration’s entry into the war on Iran alongside Israel.

The letter came nearly three weeks after more than three dozen Democrats supported an effort by Sanders to block arms sales to Israel, signaling a growing discontent in the party with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the wars in Gaza and Iran.

The two resolutions to block U.S. sales of bulldozers and bombs to Israel were opposed by all Republicans and rejected 40-59 and 36-63.

Jon Finer, former deputy national security adviser under President Joe Biden, said the recent steps by Democratic senators reflect a “growing concern about Israeli conduct of various wars that cause civilian harm and U.S. complicity in that” across the spectrum within the Democratic Party.

Asked why the Democratic Party is taking these steps now and not at the time when the war in Gaza and the Israel-Hezbollah war broke out — when the Democratic Biden administration was in power — Finer said: “our operational integration with Israel appears to be growing, which is part of it, but the truth is the Democratic base has been moving in this direction for some time and Washington has been catching up.”

Andrew Miller, a former senior official on Israel and Palestinian Affairs at the State Department, said the letter “represents a shift among congressional Democrats moving from questions of the legality of Israeli military operations to concerns about the complicity of the U.S. military.”

“It demonstrates that Democrats are taking international law very seriously and that is a welcome development,” Miller said.

The evacuation zones

Israel has issued dozens of evacuation warnings in Lebanon since the latest Israel-Hezbollah war began on March 2. Over 1 million people in Lebanon have fled their homes during the war.

Israel has also issued similar warnings for Iranians, both during the 12-day Israel-Iran war last year and during the U.S.-Israeli war launched on Iran on Feb. 28. In one case last year they warned 300,000 people in Tehran, Iran’s capital, to evacuate.

On Wednesday, the Israel military’s Arabic-language spokesperson Avichay Adraee issued an evacuation warning to residents of 12 villages in southern Lebanon saying Hezbollah is using them to launch attacks. The warnings came despite a ceasefire that has been nominally in place since April 17, although Israel and Hezbollah have been carrying daily attacks since then.

The senators said the declaration of evacuation zones does not absolve Israeli and U.S. forces “from the absolute legal responsibility to determine that each individual person or civilian facility targeted by drones, jets, and gunfire is, in fact, a military target.” It said the use of the zones has been linked to “the deaths of thousands of civilians,” describing them as “kill zones.”

In response to questions by the AP last month, the Israeli military said it issues warnings by phone, text, radio broadcast, social media and leaflets dropped from the air, in accordance with the “principles of distinction, proportionality and feasible precautions” under international law.

Mroue writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Julia Frankel contributed to this report from Jerusalem.

Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni have reached an agreement to resolve their legal dispute, bringing an abrupt end to a high-profile and increasingly contentious battle that had been set to go to trial in two weeks.

“The parties in the Blake Lively and Wayfarer Studios litigation have reached an agreement to resolve the matters,” lawyers for both sides said in a joint statement Monday in a case that has drawn outsized attention for more than a year.

“The end product — the movie ‘It Ends With Us’ — is a source of pride to all of us who worked to bring it to life. Raising awareness, and making a meaningful impact in the lives of domestic violence survivors — and all survivors — is a goal that we stand behind. We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard. We remain firmly committed to workplaces free of improprieties and unproductive environments. It is our sincere hope that this brings closure and allows all involved to move forward constructively and in peace, including a respectful environment online.”

The statement did not disclose the terms of the agreement.

The bitter dispute, which grew out of the production of the 2024 romantic drama “It Ends With Us,” had sprawled over months into a series of lawsuits, countersuits and public claims, with both sides offering sharply different accounts of what took place during and after filming.

Lively sued Baldoni, his production company Wayfarer Studios and others in December 2024, alleging sexual harassment, retaliation and other claims tied to her experience on the film. Baldoni denied the allegations and pushed back in court filings, arguing that the dispute had been mischaracterized.

Last month, U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman dismissed most of Lively’s claims, including her sexual harassment allegations, significantly narrowing the case ahead of a trial that had been scheduled to begin May 18 in New York.

The remaining claims, centered largely on alleged retaliation, had been expected to be the focus of the trial, which was likely to last two to three weeks and risked reputational damage to both parties.

It was not immediately clear whether the court had formally vacated the trial date.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta has enlisted new allies in his legal battle to unravel Nexstar Media Group’s takeover of rival television station group Tegna Inc.

Late Thursday, Bonta announced that five additional states have joined his coalition that is suing to block the $6.2-billion merger. With the additional plaintiffs, the group of top state law enforcement officers has grown to 13 — and the campaign now is a bipartisan effort.

“Antitrust enforcement is not political — it’s about protecting working families and helping ensure the benefits of a vibrant economy are for everyone, not just well-connected corporations,” Bonta said in a statement. “We welcome our sister states into the fray and look forward to fighting alongside them.”

The new states are Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Vermont. They have joined existing the plaintiffs that represent the people of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, New York, North Carolina, Oregon and Virginia.

Nexstar owns KTLA-TV Channel 5 in Los Angeles.

U.S. District Judge Troy Nunley two weeks ago granted a request by the attorneys general to issue a preliminary injunction halting the merger as the legal case proceeds. The proposed merger — which Nexstar rushed to complete despite opposition from the states — would create the nation’s largest broadcast station group with 265 television stations, up from 164 that Nexstar currently controls.

In dozens of markets, including San Diego and Sacramento, Nexstar would own multiple major TV network affiliates. That duplication has raised concerns about staff consolidations and widespread newsroom layoffs.

“State attorneys general nationwide understand just how important robust antitrust enforcement is to American life — and what a rotten deal this is for consumers, for workers, for affordability, and for our local news,” Bonta said.

El Segundo-based DirecTV separately filed a lawsuit to block the deal, saying the Nexstar-Tegna consolidation would harm their business by forcing DirecTV to pay significantly higher fees for the rights to carry their stations as part of its programming lineup.

A Nexstar representative was not immediately available for comment.

Nexstar contends the deal would strengthen TV station economics, allowing stations to bolster their news gathering and expand the number of newscasts. But DirecTV countered that in markets where Nexstar owns two stations, it relies on just one newsroom to program both channels.

Nexstar’s proposed purchase of Tegna would give the Irving, Texas-based Nexstar stations in 44 states covering 80% of the U.S. population.

The federal judge ruled there was sufficient merit in the antitrust arguments brought by Bonta and the others to pause Nexstar’s takeover of Tegna until a trial can be held to decide whether the merger is illegal.

“Nexstar must permit Tegna to continue operating as a separate and distinct, independently managed business unit from Nexstar,” Nunley wrote in his 52-page order on April 17. “And Nexstar must put measures in place to maintain Tegna as an ongoing, economically viable, and active competitor.”

Mérida, April 28, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The US government has authorized the use of Venezuelan state assets to cover the legal defense fees of President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores. 

According to reports, the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued a waiver to its existing sanctions against the Caribbean country.

The resolution, formalized in an April 24 letter from the US Justice Department to New York District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, removes an early hurdle in the high-profile case against Maduro and Flores. The pair was kidnapped by US Special Forces on January 3 and is facing charges including drug trafficking conspiracy.

The joint letter, signed by US Attorney Jay Clayton and several assistant prosecutors, clarifies that the amended OFAC licenses allow defense counsel to receive payments under strict parameters. 

“The amended licenses authorize defense counsel to receive payments from the government of Venezuela with funds made available after March 5, 2026,” the document read. US prosecutors further clarified that the defense cannot be funded with Venezuelan oil revenues that are currently controlled by the US Treasury, as well as Venezuelan state assets that have been frozen for years.

The issue of access to legal funding had previously been a central flashpoint in the case. Barry Pollack, Maduro’s defense attorney, had filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that the US government was effectively denying the defendants their constitutional right to a fair trial by blocking their ability to pay for attorneys of their choice.

At the latest hearing on March 26, Judge Hellerstein ruled out dismissing the charges but challenged the US prosecutors’ justifications for blocking Caracas’ ability to fund Maduro and Flores’ defense.

Following the issuance of the OFAC licenses, the defense has reportedly withdrawn its motions to dismiss the case, though it retains the right to refile should similar financial obstacles arise in the future. The Venezuelan government has yet to comment on this latest development in the case.

At present, no date has been scheduled for either a hearing or the commencement of the trial. The parties have submitted a request to the court for a status conference to be scheduled in approximately 60 days. The case has progressed slowly, with the prosecution pointing to the complexity of the discovery process.

At their January 5 arraignment, Maduro and Flores pleaded not guilty to charges. Despite repeated “narcoterrorism” accusations over the years, US officials have not publicly provided evidence tying Venezuelan leaders to narcotics activities. In addition, reports from specialized agencies including the US’ DEA have consistently found Venezuela to play a marginal role in global drug trafficking.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will hear arguments this week over whether the Trump administration may revoke temporary protected status for about 350,000 Haitian and 6,100 Syrian immigrants.

TPS allows people who are already in the United States to legally reside and work here if they are unable to safely return to their home country because of a sudden emergency such as war or a natural disaster. The humanitarian program, enacted by Congress in 1990, has since been used by Republican and Democratic administrations alike.

Since President Trump returned to office last year, his administration has terminated such protections for immigrants from 13 countries. Court challenges on behalf of Haitians and Syrians have been consolidated into a single case, Mullin vs. Doe, which the justices will hear Wednesday.

The high court’s ruling could eventually have sweeping repercussions for all 1.3 million immigrants from the 17 countries that were designated for TPS at the start of this administration. That’s because the federal government is arguing that decisions regarding the program are almost entirely immune from review by courts.

“Temporary means temporary and the final word will not be from activist judges legislating from the bench,” a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson, who did not provide their name, wrote in response to a request for comment.

Lower courts have repeatedly deemed the administration’s actions improper.

“We’re seeing clear gamesmanship from government to insulate all TPS decision-making from any oversight,” said Emi MacLean, a senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, who is counsel in the case for Syrians and in other cases challenging five of the terminations. “They’ve created a farce of a process to justify the ends that they sought, which was to strip humanitarian protections from over a million people.”

In the Trump administration’s appeal, Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer argued that Congress gave the Homeland Security secretary the power to grant or end the temporary protected status for troubled countries and barred judges from intervening.

He pointed to a provision that says: “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.”

Citing this hands-off provision, Trump’s lawyers won brief emergency orders last year that allowed the administration to strip legal protections from about 600,000 Venezuelans. In that case, then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had quickly reversed an extension granted by the Biden administration three days before Trump was sworn in.

The circumstances surrounding the Syria and Haiti cases are different. Advocates for the immigrants argue that the administration failed to conduct the required process to properly evaluate each country’s conditions.

They point to emails in July from a Homeland Security official to a State Department official. The Homeland Security official listed TPS designations coming up for review — Syria, South Sudan, Myanmar and Ethiopia. In response, the State Department official wrote: “I confirm that State has no foreign policy concerns with ending these TPS designations.”

State Department travel advisories for both countries warn people against traveling to either because of the risk of terrorism, kidnapping and widespread violence. U.S. citizens are advised to prepare a will.

For Syria, the advisory cites active armed conflict since 2011. For Haiti, it says the country has been under a national state of emergency since March 2024.

But Federal Register notices announcing the terminations said country conditions had sufficiently improved. The notice for Syria, for example, says “the Secretary has determined that, while some sporadic and episodic violence occurs in Syria, the situation no longer meets the criteria for an ongoing armed conflict that poses a serious threat to the personal safety of returning Syrian nationals.”

If the government loses, Homeland Security officials would have to reevaluate the TPS decisions in consultation with the State Department and make a decision based entirely on the country conditions themselves.

The government could start over, in that case, and still find that TPS is no longer warranted — if the process bears that out.

In a friend-of-the-court brief led by immigration law scholars at Georgetown and Temple universities, they explained that before TPS existed, similar forms of humanitarian relief were determined by the executive branch “without reference to any statutory criteria or constraints, and with little if any explanation for why nationals of certain countries received protection while others did not.”

With TPS in 1990, Congress sought to end that “unfettered discretion,” they wrote. Instead, the statute requires the Homeland Security secretary to terminate TPS if the review finds that conditions justifying the designation no longer exist. Otherwise, the law states, it “is extended.”

“The point of the TPS statute was to depoliticize humanitarian decisions,” said MacLean, the ACLU attorney. “Secretary Noem in all of her TPS decisions has completely undermined that fundamental goal.”

Ahilan Arulanantham, who is arguing for the Syria case on Wednesday, added that if the government wins, “it also means they could probably grant TPS to countries that don’t deserve it.” Arulanantham, co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA, has represented the National TPS Alliance in separate litigation during this administration and Trump’s first.

Top Homeland Security and State Department officials from the George W. Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden administrations filed a brief arguing that the Trump administration’s terminations of TPS for Syria and Haiti were “not based on evidence and sharply departed from past inter-agency practices.”

Haiti was originally designated for TPS in 2010 after a massive earthquake devastated the country and redesignated because of subsequent natural disasters and gang violence. In November, Noem announced that she would terminate TPS for Haiti, effective Feb. 3. She wrote in the Federal Register that “there are no extraordinary and temporary conditions in Haiti” that prevent Haitians from safely returning.

But even if there were, she continued, “termination of Temporary Protected Status of Haiti is still required because it is contrary to the national interest of the United States.”

The Homeland Security spokesperson said TPS for Haiti “was never intended to be a de facto amnesty program, yet that’s how previous administrations have used it for decades.”

Syria, meanwhile, “has been a hotbed of terrorism and extremism for nearly two decades,” the spokesperson wrote, “and it is contrary to our national interest to allow Syrians to remain in our country.”

In the Federal Register notice for Syria, Noem added that maintaining its TPS designation would “complicate the administration’s broader diplomatic engagement with Syria’s transitional government” by undermining peace-building efforts.

The Supreme Court will take up the question of whether the Homeland Security secretary can use national interest as a reason to revoke TPS. Attorneys for the TPS holders believe any decision to revoke TPS must come down to the country conditions alone.

Syria and Haiti are among the countries for which the Trump administration has also paused processing all immigration benefits. If their TPS protections expire, those immigrants would become vulnerable to detention and deportation even if they are eligible for other forms of relief.

U.S. Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer argued that Congress gave the Homeland Security secretary the power to grant or end the temporary protected status for troubled countries and barred judges from intervening.

(Aaron Schwartz / Getty Images)

Attorneys for the TPS holders say the terminations were also driven by racial animus. They point to various statements by Trump over the years, including his false claim that Haitians were eating the pets of people in Springfield, Ohio, that they “probably have AIDS” and that Haiti is among the “shithole countries” from which he would permanently pause migration.

Among those affected is a 35-year-old Haitian woman who has lived in the U.S. since 2000 and is raising her four U.S. citizen children in a Southern state. The woman requested to be identified by her middle and last initials, B.B., out of concern for her immigration case.

After graduating high school, B.B. got into nursing school but couldn’t attend because she didn’t qualify for financial aid. She said later getting TPS allowed her to become a certified nursing assistant, and she now works as a medical coordinator while owning a nail salon and three real estate properties.

Though B.B.’s TPS remains active because of the court proceedings, her driver’s license expired Feb. 3 and she has since had to rely on friends and rideshares to get around while repeatedly requesting a renewal.

She said she worries most about her children. If she were deported back to Haiti, she said, she would leave them in the U.S. for their own safety.

“It’s like planning your death,” she said. “I’m 35 and I already have a will — not because I’m going to die but because of the situation.”

On a call with reporters, attorneys and advocates, a Syrian man said he earned his master’s degree in the U.S. and now works in the healthcare industry. The man, who was identified by a pseudonym, said he and his wife are afraid of what their future will look like.

“TPS gave us something we had not had in years: a place to settle and a moment to grieve,” he said, later adding that “telling Syrians to go back right now is not a policy — it’s abandonment.”

Among the public, there is broad support for TPS and other humanitarian programs. According to a poll conducted last month by the firm Equis Research, 68% of Latino and 65% of non-Latino voters support fighting to give back legal protection to those who have lost their temporary protected status or asylum protections as a result of the current administration’s actions.

Earlier this month, the House voted in favor of a bill that would require new Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin to redesignate Haiti for TPS. Among those who crossed the political aisle to support it were 10 Republicans and Rep. Kevin Kiley, an independent from Rocklin, Calif., who caucuses with Republicans. The measure faces an uphill battle in the Senate.

In an interview with The Times, Kiley said his vote was about common sense and being humane.

“It’s particularly dangerous for people that would be returning where the gangs that are ravaging the country are just lying in wait outside the airport in Port-au-Prince,” he said, referring to the Haitian capital.

And because most won’t return willingly, Kiley added, “really all you’d be doing is removing work authorization from 350,000-some people who are going to mostly remain in the country, who will not be able to work anymore and may end up being more reliant on public assistance in states where they’re eligible.”

At the same time, Kiley said, the TPS system hasn’t worked as intended because most so-called temporary designations drag on.

“The system needs to be reformed,” he said. “But that’s all separate and apart from what we do with the folks who were already given this designation.”

Times staff writer David G. Savage in Washington contributed to this report.