rights

Imagine walking for days and nights to escape gunfire. You carry your child in your arms, guiding them through the darkness to avoid drone attacks. You have no food, no water, and nowhere safe to go.

This is the reality for families in Darfur and across Sudan, where civilians are being trapped, targeted, and terrorised as the country’s brutal war enters its third year. In el-Fasher and other parts of Darfur, entire communities have been besieged. Those who try to flee are attacked; those who remain face starvation, violence, and disease.

Behind these headlines are women and children who are suffering the most. Sexual violence is being used systematically to punish, to terrorise, and to destroy. Women and girls are abducted, forced to work for armed groups during the day, and then assaulted at night, often in front of others. Many survivors are children themselves. Some of the girls who have become pregnant through rape are so young and malnourished that they are unable to feed their babies.

Perpetrators no longer attempt to hide their crimes. Violence has become so widespread that recording or documenting cases can cost you your life. In Tawila, North Darfur, only one clinic run by Doctors Without Borders can provide care for rape survivors.

Boys are also being drawn into the conflict. Over the past 10 days, three trucks filled with children were reported heading towards Nyala, while in South Darfur, children are being armed and sent to fight. Families are disappearing without a trace.

Aid workers are also targeted. They are being kidnapped for ransom, assaulted, sometimes killed, and targeted because armed groups believe humanitarian organisations can pay. Many of those delivering aid are Sudanese women who risk their lives every day to bring food, water, and protection services to others.

Violence has also taken on an ethnic dimension. One displaced person told us, “I cannot go back, they will know by my skin colour which tribe I am from, and they will kill me.”

Sudan is now the world’s largest displacement crisis and one of its most severe humanitarian emergencies. More than 30 million people need urgent assistance. Fifteen million have been forced from their homes. Hunger and cholera are spreading fast. Clinics have been destroyed, schools are closed, and 13 million children are out of school, their education and futures slipping away.

Yet even amid this devastation, Sudanese women’s organisations are leading the response. They are running safe spaces, supporting survivors of violence, and keeping children learning where they can. They know their communities and continue their work despite constant danger. Their courage deserves not only recognition but also support.

The humanitarian response, however, remains catastrophically underfunded. Only about a quarter of what is needed has been received. Without immediate resources, millions will be left without food, medical care, or shelter as famine looms. Funding protection and psychosocial support for women and children is not optional. It is life-saving.

And this is not only a crisis of violence but also a crisis of indifference. Each day the world looks away, more lives are lost and more futures erased. The international community must support investigations into war crimes, including sexual violence, ethnic killings, and attacks on aid workers. Silence is not neutrality. Silence gives a blank cheque for horror to continue.

We must act now, urgently. Governments and donors must fully fund the humanitarian response and ensure access for those delivering aid. They must press all parties to immediately stop attacks on civilians, guarantee safe passage for those fleeing, and allow relief operations to reach those cut off by the fighting.

Humanitarian workers and grassroots organisations are risking their lives so that others might live. The world must match their courage with urgent action.

Above all, Sudan’s women and girls must be part of shaping peace. They are already leading by organising, sheltering, and rebuilding amid the chaos. Their courage offers a glimpse of the country Sudan could still become.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.

Oct. 31 (UPI) — The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois sued the Trump administration Friday for allegedly violating the civil rights of those detained in the Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Broadview, Ill.

The suit, which includes lawyers for the MacArthur Justice Center, the ACLU of Illinois and the Chicago law office of Eimer Stahl, was filed in federal court in Chicago, a press release said.

The suit demands that Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, and ICE “stop flouting the law inside Broadview.” The press release said the agencies “must obey the Constitution and provide the people they detain with ready access to counsel and humane conditions of confinement.”

Since the beginning of Operation Midway Blitz on Sept. 8, in which federal agents increased actions against undocumented immigrants in and around Chicago, protests and legal battles have ensued. On Tuesday, a judge issued a temporary restraining order on Gregory Bovino, a U.S. border patrol commander, after video footage showed Bovino throwing tear gas into a crowd during public demonstrations in Chicago and outside of the Broadview detention center. Clergy members, media groups and protesters had filed a suit alleging a “pattern of extreme brutality” intended to “silence the press” and American citizens.

Judge Sara Ellis ordered all agents to wear body cameras. She also ordered Bovino to check in with her daily, but an appeals court overturned that requirement.

“Everyone, no matter their legal status, has the right to access counsel and to not be subject to horrific and inhumane conditions,” said Alexa Van Brunt, director of the MacArthur Justice Center’s Illinois office and lead counsel on the suit, in a statement. “Community members are being kidnapped off the streets, packed in hold cells, denied food, medical care, and basic necessities, and forced to sign away their legal rights. This is a vicious abuse of power and gross violation of basic human rights by ICE and the Department of Homeland Security. It must end now.”

The press release said that agents at Broadview “have treated detainees abhorrently, depriving them of sleep, privacy, menstrual products, and the ability to shower.” Agents have repeatedly denied entry for attorneys, members of Congress, and religious and faith leaders, it said.

DHS has not responded to the suit or its allegations.

“This lawsuit is necessary because the Trump administration has attempted to evade accountability for turning the processing center at Broadview into a de facto detention center,” said Kevin Fee, legal director for the ACLU of Illinois, in a statement. “DHS personnel have denied access to counsel, legislators and journalists so that the harsh and deteriorating conditions at the facility can be shielded from public view. These conditions are unconstitutional and threaten to coerce people into sacrificing their rights without the benefit of legal advice and a full airing of their legal defenses.”

Lawyer Nate Eimer emphasized the importance of access to a lawyer.

“Access to counsel is not a privilege. It is a right,” Eimer, partner at Eimer Stahl and co-counsel in the lawsuit, said in a statement. “We can debate immigration policy but there is no debating the denial of legal rights and holding those detained in conditions that are not only unlawful but inhumane. Justice and compassion demand that our clients’ rights be upheld.”

A Tunisian court has sentenced Ahmed Souab, a lawyer and fierce critic of President Kais Saied, to five years in prison, his lawyer said, in a case that rights groups say marks a deepening crackdown on dissent in the North African country.

Defence lawyer Yosr Hamid said on Friday that her client had received an additional three-year sentence of “administrative supervision” after he was arrested in April following criticism of the legal process in a trial of prominent figures, including opposition leaders.

Souab’s trial on “anti-terror” charges lasted just seven minutes, according to Hamid, who voiced fears it sets a troubling legal precedent.

Hundreds of opposition figures, lawyers, journalists, trade unionists and humanitarian workers in Tunisia are being prosecuted for “conspiracy” or in connection with a “fake news” decree by authorities.

That legislation, Decree Law 54, has been criticised by rights activists, who are concerned over its broad interpretation by some courts.

Souab, 68, was not allowed to appear in court on Friday, declining to testify via videolink, according to Hamid. His legal team refused to enter a plea under the conditions.

Souab faces around a dozen charges related to the presidential decree on false information.

“The hearing lasted only seven minutes” before the judge retired to deliberate, Hamid told the AFP news agency on Friday.

He said there was a “lack of fundamental grounds for a fair trial” and that the decision to sentence after a one-day trial set “a precedent”.

Mongi Souab, the defendant’s brother, said authorities “prevented family members from entering” the court, criticising the brevity of the trial.

‘A dangerous escalation’

Souab was arrested in April after criticising the trial process for about 40 prominent figures, including opposition leaders, in a case related to “conspiracy against state security”.

Among those targeted in that case are figures from what was once the biggest party, Ennahdha, such as the leader and former Speaker of Parliament Rached Ghannouchi, former Prime Minister Hichem Mechichi, former Minister of Justice Noureddine Bhiri, and Said Ferjani, a member of the party’s political executive.

Souab was one of the principal defence lawyers.

After a trial involving just three hearings, without closing arguments or defence pleas, Souab accused authorities of putting “a knife to the throat of the judge who was to deliver the verdict”.

An anti-terrorism court interpreted the comment as a threat to the judges, and he was detained over it, but Souab’s lawyers said it was a reference to the huge political pressure on judges.

Heavy prison sentences of up to 74 years were handed down to those accused in the “conspiracy” mega-trial. The appeal related to that trial is scheduled to take place on November 17.

Silencing dissenting voices

Several dozen people demonstrated outside the court on Friday, brandishing photos of Souab and chanting that the country was “under repression and tyranny”.

Several Tunisian and foreign NGOs have decried a rollback of rights and freedoms since Saied seized full powers in 2021 in what critics have called a coup.

Separately on Friday, Tunisian authorities ordered the suspension of the Nawaat journalists’ group, which runs one of the country’s leading independent investigative media outlets, as part of a widening crackdown.

The one-month suspension follows similar actions against prominent civil society groups such as the Tunisian Forum for Economic and Social Rights and the Association of Democratic Women, both known for defending civil liberties.

Authorities cited financial audits linked to foreign funding as justification, but rights advocates said the real aim was to silence dissenting voices.

The National Union of Tunisian Journalists condemned the suspension as “a dangerous escalation in efforts to muzzle independent journalism under an administrative guise”.

Founded in 2004, Nawaat carried out investigations on corruption and human rights abuses before and after the revolution. In a statement, it said it would not be “intimidated by the current political climate or campaigns of defamation”.

Ben Rhodes, a former United States deputy national security adviser under President Barack Obama, famously called Washington’s foreign policy establishment “the Blob” to describe its entrenched ecosystem of think tanks, former officials, journalists and funders that perpetuate a narrow vision of power, global order and legitimate actors. This apparatus not only sustains conservative inertia but also defines the limits of what is considered possible in policy. In Sudan’s two-and-a-half-year conflict, these self-imposed boundaries are proving fatal.

A particularly insidious practice within the Blob is the invocation of moral and rhetorical equivalence, portraying the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and the Sudanese armed forces (SAF) as comparable adversaries. This ostensibly balanced US stance, evident in establishment analyses and diplomatic statements, represents not an impartial default but a deliberate political construct. By equating a criminalised, externally backed militia with a national army tasked with state duties, it sanitises RSF atrocities, recasting them as mere wartime exigencies rather than orchestrated campaigns of ethnic cleansing, urban sieges and terror.

Reports from Human Rights Watch on ethnic cleansing in West Darfur, civilian killings, rape and unlawful detentions in Gezira and Khartoum and United Nations fact-finding missions confirm the RSF’s deliberate targeting of civilians. Furthermore, a report by the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data (ACLED) monitor from late 2024 attributed roughly 77 percent of violent incidents against civilians to the RSF, underscoring this asymmetry, yet the Blob’s discourse frequently obscures it.

This notion has dominated US and international discourse on Sudan’s war since its outbreak when the then-US ambassador to Khartoum, John Godfrey, tweeted in the first month of the war a condemnation of RSF sexual violence but vaguely attributed it to unspecified “armed actors”. By refraining from explicitly identifying the perpetrators despite extensive documentation of the RSF’s responsibility for systematic rapes, gang rapes and sexual slavery, his wording essentially dispersed accountability across the warring parties and contributed to a climate of institutional impunity. RSF militiamen carry out their atrocities with confidence, knowing that responsibility will be blurred and its burden scattered across the parties.

What drives this equivalence? The Blob’s institutions often prioritise access over veracity. Framing the conflict symmetrically safeguards diplomatic ties with regional allies, particularly the RSF’s patrons in the United Arab Emirates while projecting an aura of neutrality. However, neutrality amid asymmetric criminality is not objectivity; it is tacit complicity. Elevating an internationally enabled militia to parity with a sovereign military confers undue legitimacy on the RSF, whose methods – including the besieging and starving of cities such as el-Fasher, the systematic use of rape and sexual violence as a weapon of war, the deployment of drones against mosques and markets, and acts of genocide – are demonstrably systematic, as corroborated by investigative journalism and human rights documentation. To subsume these under “actions by both parties” distorts empirical reality and erodes mechanisms for accountability.

Compounding this is the Blob’s uncritical assimilation of RSF propaganda into its interpretive frameworks. The RSF has strategically positioned itself as a vanguard against “Islamists”, a veneer that conceals its historical criminal nature, patronage networks, illicit resource extraction and foreign sponsorship.

In a similar vein, the RSF has publicly expressed sympathy and strong support for Israel, even offering to resettle displaced Palestinians from Gaza in a bid to align with US interests. This discourse serves as an overture to the Blob, leveraging shared geopolitical priorities to portray the RSF as a pragmatic partner in regional stability.

Certain establishment pundits and diplomats have echoed this narrative, casting the RSF as a viable bulwark against an “Islamist resurgence”, thereby endowing a force implicated in war crimes with strategic and ethical credibility. When the Blob internalises this “anti-Islamist” trope as analytical shorthand, it legitimises an insurgent militia’s rationalisations as geopolitical truths, marginalising the reality of the war and the Sudanese who repudiate militarised binaries and sectarian lenses.

Contrast this with the recurrent accusations of external backing for the SAF from an ideologically disparate coalition, including Egypt, Turkiye, Saudi Arabia and Iran. These claims, often amplified in mainstream media narratives and aligning with RSF discourse, expose profound inconsistencies: Egypt’s secular anti-Islamist state, Turkiye’s Islamist-leaning government, Saudi Arabia’s Sunni Wahhabi monarchy and Iran’s Shia theocracy embody clashing regional rivalries, evident in proxy wars from Yemen to Libya, rendering their purported unified support for the SAF implausible unless opportunistic pragmatism overrides ideology.

Moreover, the evidentiary threshold falls short of the robust, independent documentation implicating the UAE in RSF operations, relying instead on partisan assertions and circumstantial reports that appear designed to muddy asymmetries. Critically, any verified SAF assistance typically involves conventional arms transactions with Sudan’s internationally recognised government in Port Sudan, a sovereign authority, as opposed to the unchecked provisioning extended to the RSF, a nonstate actor formally designated by the US as genocidal. This fundamental distinction highlights the Blob’s contrived equivalence, conflating legitimate state-to-state engagements with the illicit empowerment of atrocity perpetrators.

Even more corrosive is the Blob’s propensity to credential “pseudo-civilian” entities aligned with the RSF and its external sponsors, particularly those bolstered by UAE influence, such as Somoud, led by former Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok, who also chairs the Emirati business-promotion organisation, the Centre for Africa’s Development and Investment (CADI). These networks are often presented in Blob forums as “civilian stakeholders” or “pragmatic moderates”, sidelining authentic grassroots entities inside Sudan.

This curation of externally amenable proxies transforms mediation into theatre, channelling international validation towards RSF-aligned gains and ignoring Sudanese agency rather than supporting any real civic architects of Sudan’s democratic aspirations. Documented UAE-RSF logistical and political linkages alongside Gulf-orchestrated narrative amplification should serve as a warning against endorsing such fabricated authority.

These lapses are not merely intellectual; they yield tangible harms. Legitimising the RSF through equivalence or narrative cooption dilutes legal and political tools for redress, confining policy options to performative ceasefires and superficial stability blueprints that preserve war economies and armament flows. It defers genuine deterrence, such as targeted interdictions, robust arms embargoes and the exposure of enablers until atrocities become irreversible.

The repercussions do not end there. They deepen, fuelling the militia’s authoritarian ambitions in alliance with its civilian partners. Drawing on this contrived equivalence, they have recently declared Ta’asis, parallel governing structures in western Sudan, claiming a layer of legitimacy while, at least rhetorically, brandishing the threat of partition despite the clear international consensus against recognising such authority.

To counter the Blob’s pathologies, a paradigm shift is imperative. Analysts and policymakers must abjure false symmetry, distinguishing symmetric warfare from asymmetric atrocity campaigns. Where evidence is found of systematic rights abuses, international rhetoric and actions should reflect this imbalance through targeted sanctions and disruptions while avoiding generic “both-sides” statements.

They must also repudiate RSF narratives. The “anti-Islamist” rhetoric is partisan sloganeering, not objective analysis. US engagement should centre on civilian protection, privileging authentic civil society testimonies over manufactured proxies. The question of who governs Sudan is, first and foremost, the prerogative of the Sudanese people themselves, who in April 2019 demonstrated their sovereign agency by toppling Omar al-Bashir’s Islamist regime without soliciting or relying on external assistance.

Equally important is to withhold recognition from contrived civilians. Mediation roles should hinge on verifiable grassroots mandates. Entities tethered to foreign patrons or militias merit no elevation as Sudan’s representatives.

Finally, policymakers must dismantle enablers. Rhetorical and legal measures must be matched by enforcement through transparent embargo oversight, flight interdictions and sanctions on supply chains. Justice without implementation offers only solace to victims.

Should the Blob prove intransigent, alternative forces must intervene. Sudanese civic coalitions, diaspora advocates, independent media and ethical policy networks can amass evidence and exert pressure to compel a recalibration of global approaches. A diplomacy that cloaks complicity in neutrality perpetuates atrocity machinery. Only one anchored in Sudanese agency, empirical truth and unyielding accountability can forge a viable peace.

Sudanese seek no sympathy, only a recalibration among the influential: Cease equating aggressors with guardians, amplifying perpetrator propaganda and supplanting vibrant civic realities with orchestrated facades. Until Washington’s elite perceives Sudanese not as geopolitical subjects but as rights-bearing citizens demanding justice, its epistemic maze will continue to license carnage over conciliation.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.

Study finds that rates soar to 90 percent in some regions as humanitarian crises compound childhood exploitation.

Nearly two-thirds of South Sudanese children are engaged in the worst forms of child labour, with rates reaching as high as 90 percent in the hardest-hit regions, according to a government study released with the charity Save the Children.

The National Child Labour Study, published on Friday, surveyed more than 418 households across seven states and found that 64 percent of children aged between five and 17 are trapped in forced labour, sexual exploitation, theft and conflict.

The findings reveal a crisis far more complex than poverty alone, intensified by relentless flooding, the spread of disease, and conflict that have uprooted families and left millions on the brink of hunger.

In Kapoeta South, near the border with Uganda, nine out of 10 children work in gold mining, pastoralism and farming instead of attending school, the report said.

Yambio region, the country’s southwest, recorded similarly dire rates, with local conflict and child marriage driving children into labour.

Children typically start with simple jobs before being drawn into increasingly dangerous and exploitative work, the report found. About 10 percent of those surveyed reported involvement with armed groups, particularly in Akobo, Bentiu and Kapoeta South counties.

The types of exploitation children face differ by gender. Boys are more likely to work in dangerous industries or join armed groups, while girls disproportionately face forced marriage, household servitude and sexual abuse.

‘A crisis that goes beyond poverty’

Knowing the law does not stop child exploitation, researchers found.

The surveys showed that 70 percent of children stuck in dangerous or illegal work lives came from homes with adults who were familiar with legal protections. Two-thirds of children were unaware that help existed.

“When nearly two-thirds of a country’s children are working – and in some areas, almost every child – it signals a crisis that goes beyond poverty,” said Chris Nyamandi, Save the Children’s South Sudan country director.

South Sudan’s child labour prevalence vastly exceeds regional patterns. While East Africa has the continent’s worst record at 30 percent, according to ILO-UNICEF data, South Sudan’s 64 percent is more than double that figure.

“Education remains the strongest protective factor,” Nyamandi said, noting that children who attend school are far less likely to be exploited.

The government acknowledged the crisis at the report’s launch in Juba. Deng Tong, undersecretary at the Ministry of Labour, said officials would use the evidence as a “critical foundation for action”.

The report comes as nearly one million people have been impacted by severe flooding across South Sudan, with 335,000 displaced and more than 140 health facilities damaged or submerged.

The country faces a related malaria outbreak with more than 104,000 cases reported in the past week, while 7.7 million people confront acute hunger, the United Nations said.

South Sudan has also been gripped by fears of renewed civil war. A fragile 2018 peace deal between President Salva Kiir and First Vice President Riek Machar appears increasingly strained, with armed clashes now occurring on a scale not seen since 2017, according to UN investigators.

Machar was arrested in March and charged in September with treason, murder and crimes against humanity. He has rejected all charges.

About 300,000 people have fled the country this year as violence has escalated.

BATON ROUGE, La. — Women taken into custody by U.S. immigration agents while pregnant say they received inadequate care in a letter Wednesday that calls on the Trump administration to stop holding expectant mothers in federal detention facilities.

The letter to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is part of a broader campaign in recent months by Democrats and immigrant rights groups to draw attention to what they say is the mistreatment of pregnant detainees.

The Department of Homeland Security has defended its care, saying pregnant detainees get regular prenatal visits, mental health services, nutritional support and accommodations “aligned with community standards of care.”

In addition, Homeland Security Department spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in a written statement Wednesday that such detentions are “rare” and involve “elevated oversight and review.” The agency didn’t provide figures on the number of pregnant women in detention, a number Democrats have sought for months.

The letter sent by the American Civil Liberties Union cites accounts from pregnant women who say they were shackled while being transported, placed in solitary confinement for multiple days and given insufficient food and water while detained in Louisiana and Georgia.

The ACLU said that over the last five months it has met with more than a dozen females who were pregnant while in ICE custody — including some who had a miscarriage while detained. The women reported “gravely troubling experiences,” the letter states, including lack of translation during medical encounters and medical neglect. One suffered a “severe” infection after her miscarriage.

In an interview with the Associated Press, one of the women said she was kept in handcuffs while being transported to Louisiana — a journey that lasted five hours and spanned two plane rides. The woman, who has since been released from custody and given birth, spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of facing retaliation during her ongoing case.

An officer told her he considered taking off the handcuffs but worried she would escape. “How am I going to escape if I’m pregnant?” the woman said she responded.

She said she felt as if she’d been kidnapped and experienced dizziness, nausea and vaginal bleeding. During her time in detention, she said pregnant women were not offered special diets and described the food as horrible. She alleged that detainees had to “beg” for water and toilet paper.

The ACLU’s letter is the latest call for an investigation into the arrests and treatment of pregnant detainees.

Senate Democrats wrote Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in September, expressing concerns about the “prevalence and treatment” of pregnant, postpartum and nursing women in ICE custody. They demanded that the agency stop detaining such people unless there are “exceptional circumstances.”

“Proper care for pregnancy is a basic human right, regardless of whether you are incarcerated or not and regardless of your immigration status,” said Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove, a California Democrat. She signed on to a Democratic Women’s Caucus letter to Homeland Security officials in July sharing concerns about the “treatment of women” and demanding answers — including how many have given birth while detained.

Kamlager-Dove said she’s working on legislation that would “severely restrict the use of restraints on pregnant, laboring and postpartum women who are in federal custody.”

ICE guidelines already say that agents “should not detain, arrest, or take into custody for an administrative violation of the immigration laws” people “known to be pregnant, postpartum or nursing,” based on a policy sent to the AP by Homeland Security. But the document does state that such people may be detained and held in custody under “exceptional circumstances” or if their release is prohibited by law.

The policy also prohibits using restraints on pregnant detainees, but here too there are exceptions — including if there is a serious threat that the detainee will hurt herself or others, or if “an immediate and credible risk” of escape cannot be “reasonably minimized” through other methods.

Cline and Gonzalez write for the Associated Press. Gonzalez reported from McAllen, Texas.

Oct. 20 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court is weighing a decision in the case Louisiana vs. Callais that may guide how the Voting Rights Act is enforced.

The high court heard rearguments last week in the case over the Louisiana legislature’s redistricted congressional map. A decision may be weeks, if not months, away.

The legislature redrew its congressional map in 2024 to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The new map included two districts where a majority of voters are Black out of six districts total.

Plaintiffs in Louisiana vs. Callais argue that the redrawn map violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because race was a guiding consideration in redistricting.

The Supreme Court has broadened the scope of this case with reargument under a supplemental question: Is Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act constitutional?

The collision between these two pieces of doctrine, both intended to insure equality in political participation, raises a critical question about how race and representation should be approached, one that the court is now poised to answer.

“The court is signaling that there has to be some reconciliation that happens beyond the status quo,” Atiba Ellis, Laura B. Chisholm Distinguished Research Scholar and professor of law in the Case Western Reserve School of Law, told UPI. “It’s hard to predict exactly how far that will go.”

One goal, different approaches

Section 2 and the Equal Protection Clause may share an underlying purpose but they take different approaches to meeting that goal.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits racial discrimination in election practices.

The extremes, according to Ellis, are that the court could determine Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional or it could reinterpret the test that it has long used in addressing concerns about race in redistricting cases.

Somewhere between the extremes is the court striking down the map at question but preserving Section 2.

“On the scale of possible solutions, it demonstrates that the court, informed by its colorblind jurisprudence that we saw in Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard College, is wanting to further restrict if not all but abolish the use of race-conscious remedies in the elections context,” Ellis said.

Legal tests, cases

In the 2023 case Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard, the Supreme Court ruled that using race as a factor in college admissions violates the Equal Protection Clause.

The test that guides Section 2 enforcement, referred to as the Gingles test, is the criteria required to prove vote dilution under Section 2. It is based on the court’s decision in the case Thornburg vs. Gingles in 1986.

The Gingles test is a “results test,” Ellis said.

“We simply look at a practice like redistricting in its context and the results that it has,” he said. “Thornburg v. Gingles basically created a roadmap for the inquiry. Then a court can make an inquiry within the totality of the circumstances, including the impact, the history, the background and determine whether that practice violates Section 2.”

Equal Protection Clause enforcement is guided in part by a precedent established in the case Shaw vs. Reno. This case in 1993 was over an oddly shaped majority-Black congressional district drawn in North Carolina.

The Supreme Court struck down this map, ruling that it violated the Equal Protection Clause because race was a predominant factor in its creation.

Unlike the Gingles test, the Shaw test is based on intent, according to Ellis.

“From the Shaw line to today, legislatures have had to basically walk this balance between not making race the predominant factor in redistricting — but you also can’t use race divisively by subsuming a minority group’s political power to the majority’s advantage,” Ellis said. “The former is what the Shaw line of precedent is out to do. The latter is what Section 2 does.”

“The problem, at least according to the Callais plaintiffs bringing the suit and other political entities that are supporting their position, is that these two precedents are inherently irreconcilable,” he continued.

John Cusick, assistant counsel at the Legal Defense Fund, serves as a member of the counsel in the Louisiana vs. Callais case arguing in defense of the Louisiana congressional map. He represents the appellants in the case Robinson vs. Landry, which was the impetus for Louisiana to redraw its congressional map.

Cusick told UPI that the case is part of a broader effort to limit race-conscious remedies to Civil Rights violations.

“What’s at stake in this case is that opponents are seeking to roll back progress while there is a simple truth that remains: that Black voters in Louisiana deserve the same fair and effective representation as many other communities throughout the country,” Cusick said. “So Louisianans have organized and legislated and litigated for the promise of a fair legislative map.”

“What’s consistent here is that decades of Supreme Court precedent make clear that districts created to remedy the type of racial discrimination against Black voters that’s at the heart of this case is clear and consistent and well-settled law,” he continued. “That Louisiana creating a first and second majority minority district is constitutional and not, per se, a racial gerrymander.”

Broader issue

Based on the Supreme Court precedents at play, Cusick believes Louisiana’s congressional map will be found to be permissible. However, the supplemental question over whether the constitutionality of Section 2 as a whole could send ripples across Civil Rights law.

“The Voting Rights Act is the crown jewel of Civil Rights legislation,” Cusick said. “It has the greatest effect on this country’s promise of full and equal citizenship for all Americans. We are seeing efforts throughout the country to attack many of the tools that Civil Rights legislatures have relied on, whether they are constitutional protections, whether they are statutory protections, that identify racial discrimination, that root it out and provide fair and effective remedies in doing so.”

Cusick adds that attempts to peel away Section 2 can also have effects beyond Civil Rights protections against racial discrimination. Protections for people based on gender identity and disability are also at risk.

“If the court is adhering to the supplemental question presented, this case shouldn’t have a broader impact on the Voting Rights Act, specifically Section 2, let alone other areas of the law,” Cusick said. “While we’re hopeful of that, we’re not naive.”

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide if “habitual drug users” lose their gun rights under the 2nd Amendment.

The Trump administration is defending a federal gun control law dating to 1968 and challenging the rulings of two conservative appeals court that struck down the ban on gun possession by any “unlawful user” of illegal drugs, including marijuana.

Trump’s lawyers say this limit on gun rights comports with early American history when “common drunkards” were prohibited from having guns.

And they argue this “modest, modern” limit make sense because well-armed drug addicts “present unique dangers to society — especially because they pose a grave risk of armed, hostile encounters with police officers while impaired.”

The government says the ban applies only to addicts and “habitual users of illegal drugs,” not to all those who have used drugs on occasion or in the past.

Under this interpretation, the law “imposes a limited, inherently temporary restriction — one which the individual can remove at any time simply by ceasing his unlawful drug use,” the administration’s attorneys told the court.

The appeal noted that California and 31 other states have laws restricting gun possession by drug users and drug addicts, all of which could be nullified by a broad reading of the 2nd Amendment

The court said it will hear the case of a Texas man and a Pakistani native who came under investigation by the FBI for allegedly working with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, a designated foreign terrorist organization.

When agents with warrant searched the home of Ali Denali Hemani, they found a Glock pistol, 60 grams of marijuana, and 4.7 grams of cocaine. He told the agents he used marijuana about every other day.

He was charged with violating the federal gun control law, but the 5th Circuit Court in New Orleans ruled this ban on gun possession violates the 2nd Amendment unless the defendant was under the influence of drugs when he was arrested.

The 8th Circuit Court based in St. Louis adopted a similar view that gun ban for drug users is unconstitutional.

The Trump administration asked the justices to hear the case of U.S. vs. Hemani and to reverse the two lower courts. Arguments are likely to be heard in January.

Last year, the justices rejected a gun rights claim in another case from Texas and ruled that a man charged with domestic violence can lose his rights to have firearms.

Historically, people who “threaten physical harm to others” have lost their legal rights to guns, Chief Justice John G. Roberts said in an 8-1 decision.

Mnangagwa allies push for a term extension to 2030 as ZANU-PF factions split and opposition promises a legal fight.

Zimbabwe’s governing ZANU-PF has said it will begin a process to extend President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s term by two years, potentially keeping him in power until 2030.

The plan was endorsed on Saturday at the movement’s annual conference in the eastern city of Mutare, where delegates instructed the government to begin drafting legislation to amend the Constitution, Justice Minister and ZANU-PF legal secretary Ziyambi Ziyambi said.

Mnangagwa, 83, is constitutionally required to leave office in 2028 after serving two elected terms. Any change would require a constitutional amendment – and potentially referendums – legal experts say.

Delegates erupted in applause after the motion passed, reinforcing ZANU-PF’s pattern of securitised rule since independence in 1980. The party controls parliament, giving it significant leverage, though some insiders warn that a legal challenge would be likely.

Mnangagwa has previously insisted he is a “constitutionalist” with no interest in clinging to power. But loyalists have quietly pushed for a prolonged stay since last year’s disputed election, while rivals inside the party – aligned with Vice President Constantino Chiwenga – are openly resisting an extension.

Blessed Geza, a veteran fighter from the liberation war and a Chiwenga ally, has been using YouTube livestreams to condemn the push, drawing thousands of viewers. Calls for mass protests have gained little traction amid a heavy police deployment in Harare and other cities.

The president made no mention of the extension during his closing remarks at the conference. Chiwenga has not commented on Mnangagwa’s term extension bid or the protests.

Dire economic situation

Mnangagwa came to power in 2017 amid promises of democratic and economic reforms following the toppling of the longtime President Robert Mugabe.

Mnangagwa has presided over a dire economic collapse marked by hyperinflation, mass unemployment, and allegations of corruption. Critics accuse ZANU-PF of crushing dissent, weakening the judiciary, and turning elections into a managed ritual rather than a democratic contest.

Legal opposition figures have warned that any attempt to rewrite the Constitution will face resistance in court.

“We will defend the Constitution against its capture and manipulation to advance a dangerous unconstitutional anti-people agenda,” opposition lawyer Tendai Biti said in a statement on X.

Ten elderly activists – most in their 60s and 70s – were arrested in Harare on Friday for allegedly planning a protest demanding Mnangagwa’s resignation.

They were charged with attempting to incite “public violence” and remain in custody pending a bail hearing on Monday. Earlier this year, authorities detained nearly 100 young people in similar circumstances.

The renewed manoeuvring has exposed an accelerating power struggle inside ZANU-PF. One faction wants Mnangagwa to remain until 2030; another is preparing the ground for Chiwenga, the former army general who helped topple Robert Mugabe in the 2017 coup.

Does grassroots organising have the power to hold governments and corporations accountable for genocide? And where does the US labour movement stand today?

This week on Upfront Marc Lamont Hill speaks to labour organiser and activist Chris Smalls, who cofounded Amazon’s first US labour union.

Smalls has also been a vocal critic of the United States’s complicity in the genocide in Gaza and argues that labour unions in the country have a role to play to stop Israel:

“If our dock workers did the same as our brothers and sisters overseas, we wouldn’t see a genocide,” he says.

The National Labor Relations Board has sued California to block a law that empowers a state agency to oversee some private-sector labor disputes and union elections.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 288 into law last month in response to the Trump administration’s hampering of federal regulators. It gives the state’s Public Employment Relations Board the ability to step in and oversee union elections, charges of workplace retaliation and other issues in the event the federal labor board is unable, or declines, to decide cases.

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, argues the law usurps the NLRB’s authority “by attempting to regulate areas explicitly reserved for federal oversight.”

The lawsuit echos the NLRB’s challenge to a recent New York law that similarly seeks to expand the powers of its state labor board.

NLRB attorneys contend in the lawsuits that the laws create parallel regulatory systems that conflict with federal labor law.

The NLRB is tasked with safeguarding the right of private employees to unionize or organize in other ways to improve their working conditions.

Lawmakers in New York and California said they passed their bills to fill a gap, because the NLRB has been functionally paralyzed since January, when President Trump fired one of its Democratic board members. The unprecedented firing of that member, Gwynne Wilcox, left the board without the three-member quorum it needs to rule on cases.

Wilcox has challenged her firing in court, arguing that appointed board members can only be fired for “malfeasance or neglect of duty.” But her removal was upheld by the Supreme Court for now, until her case can make its way through lower courts.

Lorena Gonzalez, president of the California Federation of Labor Unions, last month called AB 288 “the most significant labor law reform in nearly a century.”

The California Public Employment Relations Board typically has authority only over public sector employees. But when the new law goes into effect on Jan. 1, workers in the private sector who are unable to get a timely response at the federal level can also petition the state board to take up their cases and enforce their rights.

The state’s labor board can choose to take on a case when the NLRB “has expressly or impliedly ceded jurisdiction,” according to language in the law. That includes when charges filed with the agency or an election certification have languished with a regional director for more than six months — or when the federal board doesn’t have a quorum of members or is otherwise hampered.

The NLRB’s paralysis has put hundreds of cases in limbo, with the agency currently lacking the ability to compel employers to bargain with their workers’ unions, or to stop unfair treatment on the job.

However, the agency’s acting general counsel — Trump appointee William Cowen — has said that only a fraction of cases require decisions from the typically five-member board and that the agency’s work has been largely unaffected, with regional offices continuing to process union elections and unfair labor practice charges.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court may help the GOP keep control of the House of Representatives next year by clearing the way for Republican-led states to redraw election districts now held by Black Democrats.

That prospect formed the backdrop on Wednesday as the justices debated the future of the Voting Rights Act in a case from Louisiana.

The Trump administration’s top courtroom attorney urged he justices to rule that partisan politics, not racial fairness, should guide the drawing election districts for Congress and state legislatures.

“This court held that race-based affirmative action in higher education must come to an end,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote in his brief. The same is true, he said, for using the Voting Rights Act to draw legislative districts that are likely to elect a Black or Latino candidate.

Too often, he said, the civil rights law has been “deployed as a form of electoral race-based affirmative action to undo a state’s constitutional pursuit of political ends.”

The court’s conservatives lean in that direction and sought to limit the use of race for drawing district boundaries. But the five-member majority has not struck down the use of race for drawing district lines.

But the Trump administration and Louisiana’s Republican leaders argued that now was the time to do so.

If the court’s conservatives hand down such a ruling in the months ahead, it would permit Republican-led states across the South to redraw the congressional districts of a dozen or more Black Democrats.

“There’s reason for alarm,” said Harvard law professor Nicholas Stephanopoulous. “The consequences for minority representation would likely be devastating. In particular, states with unified Republican governments would have a green light to flip as many Democratic minority-opportunity districts as possible.”

Such a ruling would also upend the Voting Rights Act as it had been understood since the 1980s.

As originally enacted in 1965, the historic measure put the federal government on the side of Blacks in registering to vote and casting ballots.

But in 1982, Republicans and Democrats in Congress took note that these new Black voters were often shut out of electing anyone to office. White lawmakers could draw maps that put whites in the majority in all or nearly all the districts.

Seeking a change, Congress amended the law to allow legal challenges when discrimination results in minority voters having “less opportunity … to elect representatives of their choice.”

In decades after, the Supreme Court and the Justice Department pressed the states, and the South in particular, to draw at least some electoral districts that were likely to elect a Black candidate. These legal challenges turned on evidence that white voters in the state would not support a Black candidate.

But since he joined the court in 1991, Justice Clarence Thomas has argued that drawing districts based on race is unconstitutional and should be prohibited. Justices Samuel A. Alito, Neil M. Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett dissented with Thomas two years ago when the court by a 5-4 vote approved a second congressional district in Alabama that elected a Black Democrat.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts wrote the opinion. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh cast the deciding fifth vote but also said he was open to the argument that “race-based redistricting cannot extend indefinitely into the future.”

That issue is now before the court in the Louisiana case.

It has six congressional districts, and about one-third of its population is Black.

Prior to this decade, the New Orleans area elected a Black representative, and in response to a voting right suit, it was ordered to draw a second district where a Black candidate had a good chance to win.

But to protect its leading House Republicans — Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise — the state drew a new elongated district that elected Rep. Cleo Fields, a Black Democrat.

Now the state and the Trump administration argue the court should strike down that district because it was drawn based on race and free the state to replace him with a white Republican.

Madagascar’s parliament has voted to impeach embattled President Andry Rajoelina just hours after he fled the country in the wake of an elite army unit appearing to turn against him and seize power following weeks of deadly Gen Z protests.

The vote on Tuesday afternoon came as Rajoelina moved to dissolve parliament via a decree posted on social media earlier in the day, but which the opposition rejected.

“I have decided to dissolve the National Assembly, in accordance with the Constitution,” Rajoelina posted on X on Tuesday. “This choice is necessary to restore order within our Nation and strengthen democracy. The People must be heard again. Make way for the youth.”

The protests, which initially erupted over power and water shortages, have evolved into the most serious crisis the country and Rajoelina’s government has faced in years. “I was forced to find a safe place to protect my life,” Rajoleina, who did not disclose his location, said in a 26-minute-long live broadcast on Monday after a top army unit, known widely as CAPSAT, reportedly seized the state broadcaster. The same unit announced on Tuesday afternoon that it was “in charge” as parliament concluded the impeachment proceedings.

Rajoleina has not responded to the impeachment and has not renounced his title as head of state. Opposition parties initiated the impeachment vote on charges that Rajoelina “abandoned” his post.

There’s no clear leader in the country.

Madagascar has a long history of political crises and uprisings. Rajoelina’s own apparent exit from the country appeared to be an eerie replay of protests in 2009 that led to the collapse of a previous government, and his ascent to power. However, his government has been accused of corruption and of managing a stagnant economy.

Here’s what to know about how the protests unfolded and the army unit that has turned against the president:

What led to the protests?

Hundreds of angry protesters, led by a young movement called “Gen Z Madagascar,” began taking to the streets of the capital Antananarivo on September 25, with protests over the weekend recording the largest number of demonstrators in the three weeks of unrest.

What began as anger about persistent water and power cuts that leave businesses and homes without electricity or running water for more than 12 hours quickly escalated into frustrations with general governance.

Protesters decried widespread poverty, high costs of living, and state corruption that they say has seen business elites benefit from close contacts in government. Demonstrators began calling for the end of Rajoelina’s 15-year-old government, and for a “free, egalitarian and united society”.

Although Rajoelina sacked his prime minister and attempted a government reshuffle, protesters were not satisfied, culminating in the CAPSAT backing protesters on Saturday in what the president called an “attempt to seize power”. The unit, in a statement, said it refused “orders to shoot” demonstrators.

Some 80 percent of the country’s 31 million people lived in extreme poverty by 2022, according to the World Bank, largely due to political instability and severe climate disasters affecting food supplies. Only a third of the population has access to electricity, according to the International Monetary Fund, with the state-owned energy company, Jirama, accused of corruption and mismanagement.

Angry demonstrators blocked roads with burning tyres and rocks, and reportedly attacked public buildings, transport infrastructure, and private shops. In response, security officials responded with “violent force” according to the United Nations, with reports noting police fired rubber bullets, stun grenades, and tear gas. At least 22 people have died and dozens of others are injured, the UN said in a statement last week, although the government disputed those figures.

Rajoelina ignored calls for his resignation and accused protesters calling for his exit of wanting to “destroy our country.” His attempts to quell the anger by dissolving the government and appointing army General Ruphin Fortunat Zafisambo as the new prime minister on October 6, as well as inviting protesters for talks, were rejected by the demonstrators, who accused the government of ruling “with weapons”.

Who led the protests?

Young protesters, led by the “Gen Z Madagascar” group, started the demonstrations in late September, following similar youth-led uprisings witnessed in the past year in countries like Nepal, Morocco, Kenya, and Bangladesh.

In Madagascar, protesters say they’re demanding an end to 16 years of “inaction” by Rajoelina’s government, and have promised that they will not be silenced.

“They didn’t want to hear us in the streets,” a statement on the Gen Z Madagascar website reads. “Today, thanks to digital technology and the voice of Generation Z, we will make our voices heard at the table of power on the opposition side. To put an end to 16 years of inaction, let’s demand transparency, accountability, and deep reforms.”

The movement highlighted three demands from the government: the immediate resignation of Rajoelina and his government, the dismantling of the Senate, the electoral commission, and the constitutional court, as well as the prosecution of “the businessman close to the president”, referring to Rajoelina’s adviser and businessman, Maminiaina Ravatomanga.

It warned Rajoelina would be dragged to the International Court of Human Rights on various charges ranging from repression to embezzlement if the demands are not met.

The Gen Z Madagascar’s emblem, a flag featuring a pirate skull and crossbones wearing a distinctive Madagascan hat, is a reference to the Japanese comic series, One Piece, which follows a young pirate banding with others to fight an authoritarian government. The flag has become a hallmark of youth-led protests globally. It was raised by Indonesian protesters to show discontent in the run-up to the nation’s independence day in August, as well as by youth protesters who overthrew the Nepal government in September.

Who is President Rajoelina, and where is he?

President Rajoelina’s location is currently unknown. There is speculation that he was flown out of the country on a French military plane, according to French broadcaster RFI, but France has not commented. Madagascar is a former French colony, and Rojoelina is reported to have French citizenship – an issue which has angered some over the years.

In his Facebook statement on Monday evening, the president called for dialogue “to find a way out of this situation” and urged Madagascans to respect the constitution. He did not reveal his location and did not state his resignation.

The move to dissolve the parliament from exile further escalated the crisis and caused confusion, but opposition groups rejected it and voted for the president’s impeachment.

“The legal basis for this is unclear at the moment,” Kenya-based analyst Rose Mumunya told Al Jazeera. “Is he still the president? Legally, he is, but now that the army has announced they are taking over [security institutions], the legality of his decision to dissolve parliament is not really clear,” she said.

The 51-year-old first came to power in 2009 as the leader of a transitional government following a bloodless coup against the former president, Ravalomanana. As an opposition member and mayor of Antananarivo, Rajoelina led weeks of violent protests starting from January 2009 against Ravalomanana, whom he criticised for “restricting freedom” in the country.

Some 130 people died in the crisis. Rabalomanana fled to South Africa in March 2009 following a military coup. Rajoelina’s announcement as leader was ironically backed by CAPSAT. The international community criticised the military intervention and sanctioned Madagascar for years.

Rajoelina was elected in 2019 and re-elected in disputed 2023 polls that were boycotted by the opposition. His government, while popular at first, faced accusations of corruption, increasing repression and rights violations, analysts say. Fired Prime Minister Christian Ntsay and businessman Maminiaina Ravatomanga, were among prominent figures widely criticised in the country. Both arrived in Mauritius on a private flight on Sunday, authorities there said.

What’s CAPSAT, the army unit accused of a coup?

CAPSAT, or the Corps d’administration des personnels et des services administratifs et techniques, is an elite unit based in Soanierana district on the outskirts of Antananarivo. The group’s leader, Colonel Michael Randrianirina announed on Tuesday the unit was “in charge.”

While Rajoelina had influential backers in other important army units, analyst Mumunya noted he has not able to gain such support with CAPSAT.

The unit first appeared to mutiny after members joined thousands of protesters in Antananarivo on Saturday and called for Rajoelina’s resignation. Demonstrators hailed armed CAPSAT members packed in trucks and waving Madagascan flags. There were reports of CAPSAT teams clashing with pro-Rajoelina security forces.

A representative of the contingent said in a video statement on Saturday that “from now on, all orders of the Malagasy army, whether land, air, or navy, will originate from CAPSAT headquarters.” The unit urged all security forces to refuse “orders to shoot” and to stand with protesters.

On the same day, CAPSAT installed a new chief of defense staff, General Demosthene Pikulas, at a ceremony at the army headquarters. Armed Forces Minister Manantsoa Deramasinjaka Rakotoarivelo endorsed the move at the ceremony, saying, “I give him my blessing.”

On Sunday, CAPSAT Colonel Randrianirina told reporters that his unit’s actions did not amount to a coup. “We answered the people’s calls, but it wasn’t a coup d’etat,” he said, speaking at a gathering on Sunday outside the Antananarivo city hall, where large crowds gathered to pray for victims of the violence. One CAPSAT soldier was reportedly killed in a clash with other security units on Saturday.

Madagascar’s military has intervened in politics in several crises since 1960, when the country gained independence from France. Analyst Mumunya said CAPSAT leaders were carefully avoiding an outright coup declaration to avoid international backlash, as in the 2009 revolt. The move by the opposition to impeachment the president would legalise the takeover while the army holds the fort to ensure there’s no counter coup, she said.

“It’s a bit of push and pull between Rajoelina and the army … but the balance of power is not in Rajoelina’s favour,” Mumunya said. “There are likely ongoing negotiations between the political opposition, business elite and security forces to install a new civilian government that will appeal to the youth,” she added.

“So has his government effectively collapsed? I think we can probably conclude that,” she said.

The High Court, where Rajoelina has supporters, analysts say, will likely scrutinise and confirm whether the president can dissolve the parliament from an unknown location, or whether his impeachment can hold.

WASHINGTON — A new round of layoffs at the Education Department is depleting an agency that was hit hard in the Trump administration’s previous mass firings, threatening new disruption to the nation’s students and schools in areas including special education, civil rights enforcement and after-school programs.

The Trump administration started laying off 466 Education Department staffers on Friday amid mass firings across the government meant to pressure Democratic lawmakers over the federal shutdown. The layoffs would cut the agency’s workforce by nearly a fifth and leave it reduced by more than half its size when President Trump took office Jan. 20.

The cuts play into Trump’s broader plan to shut down the Education Department and parcel its operations to other agencies. Over the summer, the department started handing off its adult education and workforce programs to the Department of Labor, and it previously said it was negotiating an agreement to pass its $1.6-trillion student loan portfolio to the Treasury Department.

Department officials have not released details on the layoffs and did not immediately respond to a request for comment. AFGE Local 252, a union that represents more than 2,700 department workers, said information from employees indicates cuts will decimate several offices within the agency.

All workers except a small number of top officials are being fired at the office that implements the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, a federal law that ensures millions of students with disabilities get support from their schools, the union said. Unknown numbers are being fired at the Office for Civil Rights, which investigates complaints of discrimination at the nation’s schools and universities.

The layoffs would eliminate or heavily deplete teams that oversee the flow of grant funding to schools across the nation, the union said. They affect the office that oversees Title I funding for the country’s low-income schools, along with the team that manages 21st Century Community Learning Centers, the primary federal funding source for after-school and summer learning programs.

It will also hit an office that oversees TRIO, a set of programs that help low-income students pursue college, and another that oversees federal funding for historically Black colleges and universities.

In a statement, union President Rachel Gittleman said the new reductions, on top of previous layoffs, will “double down on the harm to K-12 students, students with disabilities, first generation college students, low-income students, teachers and local education boards.”

The Education Department had about 4,100 employees when Trump took office. After the new layoffs, it would be down to fewer than 2,000. Earlier layoffs in March had roughly halved the department, but some employees were hired back after officials decided they had cut too deep.

The new layoffs drew condemnation from various education organizations.

Although states design their own competitions to distribute federal funding for 21st Century Community Learning Centers, the small team of federal officials provided guidance and support “that is absolutely essential,” said Jodi Grant, executive director of the Afterschool Alliance.

“Firing that team is shocking, devastating, utterly without any basis, and it threatens to cause lasting harm,” Grant said in a statement.

The government’s latest layoffs are being challenged in court by the American Federation of Government Employees and other national labor unions. Their suit, filed in San Francisco, said the government’s budgeting and personnel offices overstepped their authority by ordering agencies to carry out layoffs in response to the shutdown.

In a court filing, the Trump administration said the executive branch has wide discretion to reduce the federal workforce. It said the unions could not prove they were harmed by the layoffs because employees would not actually be separated for an additional 30 to 60 days after receiving notice.

Binkley writes for the Associated Press.

“We have to die so people can keep working.” Canada’s Grassy Narrows First Nation is taking on the government over a local employer’s poisoning of their water.

Dutch humanitarian organisation INSO rejected the allegations and called for the release of its eight staff members.

Burkina Faso’s military government says it has arrested eight people working for a humanitarian organisation, accusing them of “spying and treason”, allegations the Dutch nonprofit “categorically” rejected.

Burkina Faso’s Security Minister Mahamadou Sana said the eight people arrested worked for the International NGO Safety Organisation (INSO), a Netherlands-based group specialising in humanitarian safety.

Those detained included a French man, a French-Senegalese woman, a Czech man, a Malian and four Burkinabe nationals, Sana said, alleging the staff members had continued working for the organisation after it was banned for three months, for allegedly “collecting sensitive data without authorisation”.

The security minister claimed some of INSO’s staff had “continued to clandestinely or covertly conduct activities such as information collection and meetings in person or online” following the ban, including its country director, who had also previously been arrested when the suspension came into effect at the end of July.

Sana said the INSO staff members had “collected and passed on sensitive security information that could be detrimental to national security and the interests of Burkina Faso, to foreign powers”.

The Hague-based humanitarian organisation issued a statement on Tuesday saying it “categorically” rejected the allegations about its activities in Burkina Faso.

“[We] remain committed to doing everything in our power to secure the safe release of all our colleagues,” INSO said in the statement.

INSO also said it collects information “exclusively for the purpose of keeping humanitarians safe,” and that the information it gathers “is not confidential and is largely already known to the public.”

Burkina Faso’s military government has turned away from the West and, in particular, its former colonial ruler, France, since seizing power in a September 2022 coup.

Together with neighbouring Mali and Niger, which are also ruled by military governments, it has also withdrawn from regional and international organisations in recent months, with the three countries forming their own bloc known as the Alliance of Sahel States.

The three West African countries have also wound back defence cooperation with Western powers, most notably their former colonial ruler, France, in favour of closer ties with Russia, including Niger nationalising a uranium mine operated by French nuclear firm Orano.

Within the three countries, the military governments are fighting armed groups linked to al-Qaeda that control territory and have staged attacks on army posts.

Human Rights Watch and other advocacy groups have accused the fighters, the military and partner forces of Burkina Faso and Mali of possible atrocities.

A TORY Peer insists Labour’s flagship workers’ rights package must be changed to protect people from being sacked or disciplined for online posts. 

Baron Young, who founded the Free Speech Union, says any messages more than a year old shouldn’t be used to reprimand employees and “cancel” people. 

2

Bosses would have to be able to prove that “tangible” harm had been caused rather than “reputational” damage which is too vague. 

The Employment Rights Bill is currently in the House of Lords and will be debated when Parliament returns after the party conferences. 

The Peer is compiling a report on how laws affecting free speech should be changed or abandoned. 

The dossier should be published before the end of the year and could be adopted as party policy after that, he added. 

He said changes “would make it unlawful for companies to discipline, fire, penalise employees for things they’ve said online unless, first of all, they’re less than a year old. 

“So there’s a one-year statute of limitations on what the offence archaeologists can dig into to try and find reasons to cancel you. 

“In addition, the employer would have to show that the comment in question has caused tangible harm to the company. 

Lord Young of Acton was made a peer by Tory leader Kemi Badenoch in December. 

He previously founded a network of free schools, and has been a newspaper columnist for more than 20 years. 

2

Thousands of migrants from sub-Saharan Africa wait near the coast in Tunisia for an opportunity to make the treacherous voyage across the Mediterranean. Under an agreement signed with the European Union, the Tunisian government does what it can to stop them. NGOs and migrants accuse the Tunisian coastguard of deliberately sinking migrant boats at sea, leaving those on board to drown. Others say migrants are regularly bused out to the desert and abandoned. We investigate these allegations and meet the humans caught in the crossfire of a political battle over migration.

Conservatives like billionaire Elon Musk had criticised the Southern Poverty Law Center for its criticism of Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the United States has announced that the bureau will end its partnership with the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), as it seeks to distance itself from organisations it accuses of political bias.

On Friday, FBI Director Kash Patel posted on social media that “all ties with the SPLC have officially been terminated”.

“The Southern Poverty Law Center long ago abandoned civil rights work and turned into a partisan smear machine,” Patel wrote.

He reserved criticism for the centre’s interactive “hate map”, which identifies groups associated with hate and antigovernment activity and maps their bases of operation.

“Their so-called ‘hate map’ has been used to defame mainstream Americans and even inspired violence. That disgraceful record makes them unfit for any FBI partnership,” Patel said.

Patel’s announcement marks the second time this week the FBI has severed ties with a group that seeks to track threats to civil rights.

On Thursday, the FBI also cut ties with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), accusing the Jewish advocacy group and anti-Semitism watchdog of spying on conservatives.

The announcements amount to a dramatic rethinking of longstanding FBI partnerships with prominent civil rights groups, at a time when Patel is moving rapidly to reshape the nation’s premier federal law enforcement agency.

Over the years, both organisations have provided research on hate crime and domestic extremism; law enforcement training; and other services. But they have also been criticised by some conservatives for what they claim is an unfair maligning of their viewpoints.

That criticism escalated after the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Outrage after Kirk’s shooting brought renewed attention to the SPLC’s characterisation of the group Kirk founded, Turning Point USA.

For instance, the SPLC included a section on Turning Point in a report titled “The Year in Hate and Extremism 2024” that described the group as a “case study in the hard right”.

Prominent figures including Elon Musk lambasted the SPLC this week about its descriptions of Kirk and the organisation.

“Incitement to violence by evil propaganda organisations like SPLC is unacceptable,” Musk wrote. He added, “This is getting innocent people killed,” without elaborating further.

A spokesperson for the SPLC, a legal and advocacy group founded in 1971, did not directly address Patel’s comments in a statement Friday.

But the spokesperson said the organisation has shared data with the public for decades and remains “committed to exposing hate and extremism as we work to equip communities with knowledge and defend the rights and safety of marginalised people”.

Criticism from the far-right of the SPLC stretches back well before Patel’s announcement.

Republican lawmakers have long accused the SPLC of unfairly targeting conservatives. In October 2023, Senators James Lankford and Chuck Grassley urged the FBI to cut ties with the group, calling it biased and unreliable for labelling faith-based and conservative organisations as “hate groups”.

They argued that the SPLC was not a neutral civil-rights watchdog, but a partisan actor whose data must be banned from official use.

Returning home

About 70 percent of the Nukak population remains displaced from their ancestral lands, according to the FCDS.

Most families have been pushed into sedentary lifestyles, settling in makeshift camps on the edge of towns, where addiction and child sexual exploitation became widespread.

Others have settled on small plots in rural areas, where tensions with settlers flared over land disputes.

“The settlers took over the land as if it were vacant. They say there were no Nukak, but what happened was that the Nukak got sick and left,” said Njibe.

In the most remote reaches of the Amazon, where the Nukak reservation is located, the Colombian government has little presence.

The Nukak, therefore, have few legal protections from settler violence when they try to reclaim their lands.

But in recent years, Nukak members like Njibe, tired of waiting for government action, resolved to return on their own.

The idea gained traction in 2020, when several clans retreated into the jungle for fear of the COVID-19 pandemic.

But after returning to their relative isolation, the clans considered staying for good. They called on nongovernmental organisations like FCDS for support.

At that time, Njibe was living on a small farm inside the limits of the Nukak Maku reservation.

Even within the reservation, decades of colonisation had razed large swaths of the forest. Grassy pastures dotted with cows had replaced the Amazon’s towering palm trees.

Deforestation had increased in the wake of a 2016 peace deal between the government and the FARC. The rebel group previously limited deforestation in the Amazon in order to use its dense canopies as cover against air surveillance.

But, as part of the deal, FARC — the largest armed rebel group at the time — agreed to demobilise. A power vacuum emerged in its place.

According to FCDS, powerful landowners quickly moved into areas formerly controlled by the FARC, converting the land into cattle pastures.

Armed dissident groups who rejected the peace deal also remained active in the area, charging extortion fees per cow.

“The colonisation process has caused many [Nukak] sites to be either destroyed or absorbed by settler farms,” said a FCDS expert who asked not to be named for fear of retaliation.

Still, in 2022, the FCDS forged ahead with a pilot programme to support seven Nukak communities as they settled deeper into the reservation, where the lush forest still remained. There, the Nukak hoped they could revive a more traditional, if not completely nomadic, way of life.

But many of the expeditions to identify permanent relocation sites failed.

Initially, Njibe hoped to move to a sacred lake inside the reservation that he recalled from his childhood, but once he arrived at the site, he found that it was now part of a ranch.

When he asked the settler who ran the ranch for permission to stay there, the rancher rejected his request, and Njibe was forced to choose another place to live.

He considered returning to a forested area — about 24 hectares (59 acres) wide, roughly the size of 33 football fields — that he considered his childhood home.

But that too lay within a ranch. This time, however, the settler in question, who Njibe said was more sympathetic to his land claims, allowed him to stay.