legal

New restrictions have stripped Medicaid coverage from certain legal immigrants, including refugees and victims of human trafficking, as part of broader federal changes to the health insurance program that are expected to force millions off their coverage.

The change effective Oct. 1 cut from Medicaid what is estimated to be hundreds of thousands of people who legally immigrated to the United States, many of whom work and pay taxes, in the latest Trump administration policy to target foreigners.

The move is part of sweeping changes to Medicaid under President Donald Trump’s 2025 tax cut and policy law, with many set to take effect early next year. The Medicaid changes are projected to result in 7.5 million fewer people with health insurance, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s 2025 estimate.

Advocates say that without Medicaid, people will not be able to afford private insurance and will either delay care or end up in emergency rooms, adding pressure to a strained health system. For immigrants, the cuts could be felt more acutely, compounding the effects of other administration efforts to restrict their access to public assistance as part of a broader immigration crackdown.

“This is about telling every immigrant in the United States that they are not welcome here and that they should leave,” said Ben D’Avanzo, a senior strategist at the National Immigration Law Center, which has pursued litigation against the Republican administration over its immigration agenda.

Refugees, asylum seekers, victims of human trafficking and domestic violence are among those who have lost coverage. Green-card holders were not impacted.

Lauren Bis, a White House spokesperson, said in a statement that “immigrants must be able to support themselves without taking from overburdened benefits programs paid for by hard-working American taxpayers.”

D’Avanzo said many people who have lost coverage will likely only realize when they need medical care. But for some, the change has been felt immediately.

Dwindling supplies of lifesaving medication

In Tucson, Arizona, María Chacon has been caring for her son Jesus for almost five years since a car accident at 17 left him unable to breathe on his own. He requires a ventilator, a feeding tube and daily medication, and must be turned once every two hours to stop sores from forming. Chacon said he sometimes opens his eyes.

The family is originally from Mexico and entered the U.S. on a T visa, offered to victims of human trafficking, in 2018.

Chacon said Medicaid has helped cover almost $25,000 per month of care for her son, which includes a small stipend for her and her husband as compensation for being long-term caregivers. She said doctors have explained that even if they both worked 24 hours a day, they would not be able to cover the cost of his care.

“Since that day I haven’t been able to sleep. We haven’t been able to eat or anything. We’re wondering what we’re going to do?” Chacon said.

Jesus takes medication that Chacon estimates costs $7,000 a month. The supply runs out in mid-October. Without coverage, she does not know how her son is going to survive.

Chacon found out just days before the cuts that she was losing care. She called the state’s Medicaid offices to appeal. Although she is in the process of obtaining a green card, Medicaid coverage would only kick in five years after she is approved.

Steven Camarota, research director for the Center for Immigration Studies, a right-leaning think tank that seeks less immigration, said the administration “is trying to nibble around the edges” with the Oct. 1 cuts, finding piecemeal ways to curb immigration into the U.S.

Camarota believes the government should screen legal immigrants for income potential and education, reducing the number who might rely on public benefits once they cross the border.

“You need immigrants who are unlikely to need welfare,” he said, or those with high educational attainment.

The administration recently revived a federal rule that could deny green cards to immigrants who use public benefits that could include food stamps, Medicaid, housing vouchers and others.

Chacon believes the cuts to Medicaid coverage are part of the administration’s clampdown on immigrants. She said her son is in no condition to travel.

“I know that’s what he’s doing, but, as my son is, I couldn’t go to Mexico,” Chacon said.

Millions more will be dropped from Medicaid

Medicaid, jointly funded by states and the federal government, has become a political focal point during Trump’s second term. The president has pushed to root out what he describes as fraud in the program. In July, the administration deferred over $1 billion in Medicaid payments to California and Minnesota, claiming there was suspected fraud; critics argued the move targeted Democratic-led states.

As more people are cut from Medicaid, the federal government is predicted to reduce program spending by $911 billion, according to healthcare research nonprofit KFF.

In Arizona, officials said 29,000 legal immigrants were cut from Medicaid rolls on Oct. 1. In Florida, estimates are closer to 177,000. Overall, more than 281,000 immigrants from nine states and the District of Columbia are estimated to lose Medicaid coverage, according to KFF.

As more states implement various restrictions to coverage, 7.5 million people are expected to lose coverage by 2034, according to analysis by the Congressional Budget Office.

Without coverage, people will turn to emergency rooms for care. When people delay seeing a doctor, conditions can worsen and become even more expensive to treat.

“At the end of the day, it does raise the cost for the states because once you get these people in for something that could have been prevented, they could not go to the doctor because they were uninsured; they most likely will end up at a hospital in an emergency room,” said Carmen Feliciano, the vice president of policy and advocacy at UnidosUS, a Latino civil rights organization.

UnidosUS partners with community organizations to help provide medical care, but Feliciano said they already are overwhelmed and would not be able to support the number of people who are going to lose medical coverage in the coming months.

“We are not going to have the capacity to serve all the people who need it,” Feliciano said.

Schuettler and Hussein write for the Associated Press.

Several of today’s papers lead with the government’s review of ADHD and autism diagnoses. A “stark warning over rising demand for NHS autism and ADHD care” tops the Guardian. Elsewhere, it reports that two Latvians have been arrested after they were “found inside RAF base”. And, after it was revealed that the three sisters who died in the Brighton sea had taken their own lives, the paper describes their “final pilgrimage”.

Halle Berry has several loved ones in her corner amid her contentious custody case with ex-husband Olivier Martinez, who accused the Oscar winner of physically abusing their 12-year-old son. Among the actor’s supporters is Nahla Aubry, the 18-year-old daughter Berry has kept largely out of the public eye.

Aubry, whom Berry shares with ex-boyfriend Gabriel Aubry, spoke against her former stepfather Martinez and in support of her mother in a declaration filed Monday in Los Angeles Superior Court. In his request for a restraining order filed last week, Martinez accused Berry of physically abusing their son, Maceo, “putting her hands around his neck, and choking him” during a Sept. 26 incident. Martinez was granted the restraining order and is seeking sole legal and physical custody. Nahla Aubry said in her declaration, obtained by The Times, that Martinez’s allegations left her “shocked, very sad, and very upset.”

“The statements Olivier claims my mom made are wholly inconsistent with the values she has taught me my entire life,” Aubry said. She added elsewhere in her declaration: “I have never witnessed her act violently toward anyone.”

A legal representative for Martinez did not immediately respond on Thursday to The Times’ request for comment.

In her declaration, Aubry spoke about her experiences splitting time between her mother and father’s homes amid their separation and and said her mother “consistently provided me with stability, support, guidance” and that she “never heard” the actor speak negatively about her family or her ex-boyfriend. Aubry said she lived with her brother for most of her life and has “never heard my mom say anything about Olivier” to her brother, contradicting claims Martinez raised in his request for a protective order.

Martinez pointed to an alleged 2023 incident when Berry is accused of telling their son, then 9, that his father is “ ‘a white b— trying to rob a Black woman’ due to child support issues,” according to court documents. She added that Berry has “always” encouraged her children to keep “loving relationships with our fathers.” Aubry also said in her declaration that while Berry can be strict, she is also “warm, supportive and deeply involved in our lives.”

“I have never witnessed her act violently toward anyone, however, I do remember Olivier beating up my father in our driveway when I was little,” she said, referring to a 2012 brawl between Gabriel Aubry and Martinez.

In addition to denying the claims of abuse against her mother, Aubry spoke about her stepbrother’s behavior, writing in his declaration he can be “very impulsive” and “often acts without thinking and then refuses to take responsibility for his actions.” Aubry noted she last spoke to her brother a day after the alleged September incident and that he did not seem upset, and that the current restraining order prohibits her from contacting her brother.

Berry’s fiancé, Van Hunt, and her attorneys also filed declarations in favor of the “Monster’s Ball” actor. Attorney Marina Z. Beck in her declaration accused Martinez of refusing to provide information to Berry about their son and his education, of interfering with their son’s therapy and of refusing to follow therapist recommendations. The court documents also include screenshots of text message exchanges between Berry and Martinez and an email from their son’s school about his disruptive behavior days after the alleged incident.

Berry and Martinez were married from 2013 from 2015. Their divorce finally ended in August 2023, when they agreed to joint custody of their son and Berry agreed to pay Martinez $8,000 a month in child support.

In his request for a restraining order, Martinez also asked that Berry refrain from drinking or partaking in other substances during her visitation time and asked that she complete sobriety testing “before, during and after” her visitation, according to court documents. The judge denied those sobriety testing requests until a further hearing for the order on Oct. 16.

Patrick Baghdaserians, an attorney for Martinez, told The Times last week the welfare and safety of Berry and Martinez’s child remains paramount.

Ukrainian reports of South Korean fuel exports to Russia come amid strained tensions between Seoul and Kyiv.

South Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has said the government will take legal action over illegal fuel shipments to Russia if allegations from an adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy are confirmed.

The Foreign Ministry said on Thursday it had not confirmed whether South Korean fuel, including diesel, had been exported to Russia.

It added that exports of some products, such as diesel and jet fuel for commercial purposes, were not included in a South Korean exports control list to Russia.

On Wednesday, the South Korean presidential office dismissed a statement by Vladyslav Vlasiuk, an adviser to the Ukrainian president on sanctions policy, that 176,000 tonnes of fuel were shipped from South Korea to Russia via sanctioned tankers in July and August.

Ukraine’s top sanctions official said the alleged findings run counter to South Korea’s sanctions policy towards Russia.

“Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, our government has consistently implemented sanctions and export controls against Russia in close cooperation with the international community,” South Korean presidential spokesperson Kang Yu-jung said on Wednesday, according to the Yonhap news agency.

“We ask that Ukraine also refrain from distorting the relevant policies of the Republic of Korea without sufficient verification of the facts and making public remarks that can damage international trust,” she added.

Relations between South Korea and Ukraine have been strained for the past couple of weeks after Seoul accused Zelenskyy of having “unilaterally disclosed” to the United Nations General Assembly that Kyiv had transferred two North Korean prisoners of war to South Korea.

Seoul Korea demanded an official apology from Kyiv, claiming the Ukrainian president had breached a non-disclosure agreement. Kyiv said no such agreement was in place.

Pyongyang and Moscow, meanwhile, have deep ties, with the two countries having signed a mutual defence treaty in 2024. According to Ukrainian and South Korean estimates, about 14,000 to 15,000 North Korean soldiers were sent to support Russia’s war efforts against Ukraine.

North Korea and South Korea remain technically at war because the 1950–1953 Korean War ended in an armistice rather than a peace treaty.

Argentina gives UK two weeks to cease operations or face maritime court action.

Argentinian President Javier Milei has threatened the British government with legal action unless it stops an oil project off the disputed Falkland Islands, the British-administered territory over which Buenos Aires claims sovereignty.

Milei gave the United Kingdom a two-week ultimatum on Monday evening, saying it must halt all work on the Sea Lion oil project or Argentina will ask the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, a maritime court in Hamburg, Germany, to order a stop to the project.

He called the operations “the illegal plundering of our resources” and declared “Argentina will not stand idly by” as the UK causes “irreversible and irreparable” damage.

The companies developing the project, Israel’s Navitas and Britain’s Rockhopper, have shrugged off Argentina’s threats, insisting they have valid exploration licences issued by the UK.

The tribunal, an independent court established under the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, can issue legally binding emergency orders. But even if it ordered the UK to halt the project, it has no means of forcing the government to comply.

The UK rejects Argentina’s sovereignty claim, arguing that the islanders have the right to determine their own future and develop their natural resources. In a referendum in 2013, residents of the Falklands voted overwhelmingly to remain a British overseas territory. Argentina says the islands were populated illegally.

Milei’s administration has already taken legal action against the project authorised by Britain, arguing it violates a United Nations resolution calling for both sides to desist from unilateral actions in the islands until their dispute is resolved.

Buenos Aires has doubled down on its claim over the Falklands since United States President Donald Trump said Washington was open to reviewing its historically neutral stance on the territory.

The British government for its part has said it stands behind the businesses operating near the Falklands.

The dispute over the Falkland Islands led to a war between Britain and Argentina in 1982. It killed 649 Argentinian soldiers, 255 British soldiers and three islanders after Argentina invaded the archipelago that year.

Manchester City‘s legal fight with the Premier League has the potential to “spiral out of control”, a former top club executive has warned.

Christian Purslow, a former Liverpool managing director and Aston Villa chief executive, who also held a senior role at Chelsea, said the case could begin a chain of events that would be “appalling for the game”.

City have been found guilty of the vast majority of 115 charges brought forward by the Premier League.

The club were accused of a wide range of rule breaches which centred around claims that they inflated sponsorship revenue from connected companies and made other “off the books” payments to circumvent football’s financial rules.

Premier League clubs are seeking legal advice about compensation relating to the charges, while BBC Sport has been told that City will appeal.

Sanctions on the club are yet to be announced, but repercussions could include a points deduction, expulsion from the Premier League or a huge fine.

Speaking on Radio 4’s Today programme, Purslow appeared alongside football law expert Paul Gilroy KC, who described the case as a “seismic moment for world football”.

Purslow said: “It’s a sort of ‘where does this end?’ because if you look at every single season – the nine seasons which we now know Manchester City breached rules – then all of their 19 Premier League rivals in that season, to differing extents, suffered easy-to-compute loss. Whether it was a place in the Premier League – every place was worth £3m.

“Teams that came fifth who didn’t make the Champions League maybe lost tens of millions of pounds – and of course teams that were relegated. Let’s say the team that finished 18th would’ve finished 17th if Manchester City weren’t there. And they, of course, suffered huge loss.

“If you add all those claims up, over nine years, and that’s just in the Premier League, you can see that the potential here for this to spiral out of control is huge.

“I really hope that common sense prevails here and that there is a comprehensive solution between the authorities and Manchester City that looks at all these issues and tries to draw a line in the sand.

“Because a never-ending waterfall of legal claims and uncertainties for another four or five years would be absolutely appalling for the game.”

Gilroy added that, so far, four clubs have put in protective claims “reserving the right to claim compensation if City are found guilty”.

A three-part series following investigative reporters and police investigators who were instrumental in holding Gary Glitter accountable for his sex abuse crimes has been paused

Netflix has paused the release of an investigative docuseries into disgraced Gary Glitter’s history of sexually abusing minors.

The streaming giant has issued a statement confirming that the three-part series will no longer be released on October 14 as they originally announced.

A spokesperson for Netflix said: “We have made the decision to pause the release of Hunting Gary Glitter originally due to launch on October 14.

“This follows new legal information we recently became aware of. We’re not able to share further detail at this time, but we’ll provide an update as soon as we’re in a position to do so.”

The synopsis for the series states: “A string of dogged journalists chases fugitive pop star Gary Glitter across the globe — from Cuba to Cambodia to Vietnam — determined to expose the child sexual abuse he concealed behind decades of chart-topping fame.

“This documentary follows their pursuit alongside the survivors who speak out, charting Glitter’s 1997 conviction, through to his years on the run, and eventual incarceration.”

The rocker, real name Paul Gadd, was a popular British glam rocker in the 1970s and sang numerous hits like Do You Wanna Touch Me and I Love You Love Me Love.

In 1999, his popularity was derailed by numerous allegations of child sexual abuse and subsequent conviction for possession of child pornography.

Later, in 2006, he was jailed in Vietnam for the sexual abuse of two girls. In 2015, he was convicted of sexually abusing three additional young girls.

In 2023, Gadd was released for a short time on probation before being reincarcerated. Police did not publicly say how he violated the terms of his release.

Featured in the trailer of Hunting Gary Glitter, the docuseries uses first-person interviews to detail Gladd’s original convictions and years hopping from country to country, including Vietnam, Cuba, and Cambodia to avoid prosecution and jail time.

The advert was released alongside the initial announcement but has now been pulled as has all the other assets from Netflix’s media website.

Hunting Gary Glitter was due to be released on Netflix on October 14 but has been paused

In April 2022, Moore tested positive for nandrolone and boldenone at a WTA 250 event in Bogota, with an independent tribunal ruling in December 2023 that contaminated meat was the source.

Moore, who was Britain’s leading women’s doubles player at the time of the failed test, was found to bear “no fault or negligence”, but the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) appealed against the decision.

Last year, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas) ruled in favour of the ITIA and Moore was banned until 2028.

Moore then initiated proceedings with the American Arbitration Association, in which she claimed the WTA’s “failure to warn against eating meat in Colombia was a direct cause of her positive test result and the harm that followed”.

The arbitrator supported the ruling made by Cas and dismissed the case against the WTA.

In response, Moore filed a motion against the decision at the United States District Court in New York.

Moore, who was ranked a career-high 77th in the world in 2022, claimed she was denied a fair hearing by the arbitrator.

The motion detailed how Moore was seeking “no less than $20m in compensatory damages” after claiming the WTA “stayed silent in the face of a known and specific danger and then shifted the blame for its own negligence” to the player.

On Friday, United States district judge Andrew Carter found Moore’s challenge was “not justified” on a legal basis.

The WTA and ITIA have been approached for comment.

BBC The Split spin-off The Split Up is here and it features a number of exciting guest stars.

Two British comedy icons are taking on rather less cheerful roles in BBC drama The Split Up.

Sir Lenny Henry and Jane Horrocks play a couple whose marriage is falling apart in the Manchester-set spin-off from The Split.

Their characters’ divorce puts them at the heart of a high-profile case for the Kishan family’s law firm.

Comic Relief co-founder Henry appears in the opening minutes as Alex Edwards, an old friend of the Kishans.

Meanwhile, Absolutely Fabulous, Little Voice and Trollied stra Jane Horrocks features later on in the debut episode as his wife Tash Edwards.

Alex decides to end their marriage after photographs emerge suggesting Tash has been having an affair with “someone half your age”, reports Wales Online.

Speaking to lawyer Aria Kishan (played by Ritu Arya), a devastated Alex looks back on the start of their relationship: “We met when I was 19. Working in a chippy.

“I didn’t know what I was doing or where I was going. And then she turned up and just made sense of it all.”

The role also brings Henry into a drama alongside his life-long friend Sanjeev Bhaskar, who plays Aria’s father, Dhruv. Henry previously appeared in Bhaskar’s sitcom The Kumars at No 42.

Bhaskar was full of praise for his friend’s performance when he told Digital Spy: “I saw Lenny last week actually and I told him how brilliant I thought he was in it and I think he was quite surprised at his own performance.

“I think it’s a testament to the writing and to the directing to get that out of him.”

Henry and Horrocks are not the only recognisable names joining the cast either with The Good Place actress Jameela Jamil also set to feature as Nisha Mantri.

Away from Alex and Tash’s marital troubles, the six-part series follows Aria as she prepares to take over the family firm while planning her wedding.

Her mother died six months earlier, and Dhruv, the founder of Kishan Law, is beginning to doubt whether his daughter is ready for the responsibility.

In addition, the return of a former flame adds another complication to Aria’s life.

The Split Up is available to watch on BBC One and BBC iPlayer.

In one corner is bnb-side, a six-room bed and breakfast on the Isle of Portland – a tiny wedge of limestone tied by a narrow ribbon of shingle to the Dorset coast – that was created to help secure the future of the rock’s much-loved arts festival, b-side.

On the other is Airbnb, the San Francisco-based booking colossus. The battle between them is over the three little letters they share.

b-side says the “bnb” in bnb-side means what it has always meant: bed and breakfast. But lawyers for the Silicon Valley titan say the name of the guesthouse, perched on an outcrop just 4 miles long by 1.5 miles wide, threatens the global brand of the $100bn heavyweight.

“We thought the name was both really obvious and really cool,” said Rocca Holly-Nambi, director of b-side. “b-side was founded almost 20 years ago, so when we set up our BnB in 2024 to raise money for the festival, we just popped the ‘bn’ in front because it’s a universally recognised description of what we’re offering.”

Airbnb doesn’t agree. In May, it sent the first of three legal letters to the tiny social enterprise to demand it cease its attempt to register the B&B using the name it had used since it opened its doors.

“They won’t let us compromise by using a different case, an ampersand or an ‘and’,” said Holly-Nambi. “According to Airbnb, we can’t describe our BnB as a BnB at all.”

For bnb-side, losing the argument could mean more than abandoning a clever name. It would mean replacing signage and rewriting websites, social media and all other material referencing and advertising the B&B.

“That’s not just a huge waste of money – of which we don’t have much – and of the equally valuable time of our volunteers, but it would throw b-side’s core income stream into chaos,” said Holly-Nambi. “We’d have to painstakingly build our reputation and brand back up from scratch all over again.”

Raina Summerson, chair of b-side, is fuming and incredulous. “We opened bnb-side because we were completely dependent on public funding and wanted to be more financially secure,” she said. “bnb-side now generates almost half the festival’s annual £250,000 turnover. If it loses its name, we risk having to establish it all over again.”

Airbnb has opposed the name on three separate legal grounds: that consumers will confuse the two brands, that bnb-side could benefit from or damage Airbnb’s reputation, and that bnb-side will financially profit by misrepresenting itself as an official Airbnb service.

b-side is asking the Intellectual Property Office to reject Airbnb’s opposition in full, with costs awarded in their favour. The case is still under way, with no ruling having yet been made.

Airbnb’s claim has hit a nerve on the proud, windswept outcrop. Cat Wightman, manager of bnb-side, said: “It’s pretty bitter. We’ve watched other small, local hospitality businesses go under, and local people unable to afford homes here, who have been negatively affected by the force with which the Airbnb market has conquered Portland. One person owns eight properties on the island, all of which are rented out on Airbnb.”

b-side obtained pro bono advice and is working with the law firm Stevens Hewlett & Perkins to defend them, but the process is still intimidating. “It’s terrifying but we’re not going to back down,” said Holly-Nambi. “We do things differently here in Portland.”

Craig Beaumont, a trademark attorney and senior associate at Barker Brettell, a law firm that specialises in intellectual property, said that for all Airbnb’s might, this would not be an easy or straightforward win for them.

“This feels like an uphill battle they’re embarking on,” he said. “BnB has long been widely understood as shorthand for a descriptive phrase, and descriptive phrases are available for the public to use.”

bnb-side are not the only company who agree with Beaumont: Companies House records show that in the past decade 14 accommodation companies with “bnb” in their name successfully registered their businesses.

Darren Meale, a partner and trademark litigation specialist at Simmons & Simmons, said it was no surprise the term was used so often. “It’s quite punchy of Airbnb to say they’re so well-known that they can monopolise a term that they only incorporated into their name in the first place because it was a descriptive one that everyone immediately understood, and then say that someone else using the term is going to confuse customers and damage them.”

Lee Curtis, a partner and chartered trademark attorney at IP law firm HGF, agreed that Airbnb “may be testing the limits” of the law. But he pointed to another risk for the lodging colossus.

“There’s a public relations angle to take into account,” he said. “Some companies may welcome getting a reputation for aggressive enforcement but that can backfire when the target is a community organisation, like this one.”

Airbnb has been approached for comment.