rule

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court’s conservative justices say they decide cases based on the words and original history of the Constitution — and not on their personal or political views.

Following the lead set by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, they say they see history and “originalism” as a guiding principle to prevent judges from changing the Constitution to adjust to new and changing times.

This text-and-history approach is said to contrast with an evolving or “living Constitution” favored by progressives and liberal activists.

But this year saw a flip of sorts on birthright citizenship.

The foremost conservatives agreed with President Trump that the surge of illegal immigration called for reconsidering the promise of citizenship at birth set out in the 14th Amendment of 1868.

“The number of illegal immigrants in this country exploded” in recent years, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote in dissent. The rule of citizenship at birth provides “a powerful incentive to enter or remain in this country illegally,” he added.

“The Constitution is an enduring document,” wrote Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, but its rules and meaning must adjust to “modern situations that were unknown or unanticipated by the Constitution’s Framers.”

In a concurring opinion, he said that “significant illegal immigration into the United States is a new circumstance that was largely unknown as of 1868.”

There were no federal immigration laws in the mid-19th century, but it was an era when a surge of Irish immigrants had settled on the East Coast and large numbers of Chinese immigrants came to California.

Under the law, their children were deemed to be citizens at birth.

Among the conservative originalists, only Justice Amy Coney Barrett signed the majority opinion that was written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and joined by the three liberals.

The opening words of the 14th Amendment of 1868 say: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.”

In 1898, the Supreme Court upheld the rule of citizenship at birth in the case of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents.

In an executive order, Trump proposed to end birthright citizenship for the newborns whose parents were in the country illegally or temporarily.

Writing for the court, the chief justice said the words of the 14th Amendment were clear and were clearly understood at the time. He dismissed the “dramatically revisionist view” that has been cited recently.

Kavanaugh voted with the majority to block Trump’s order from taking effect. He did so because Congress had adopted birthright citizenship in a 1952 law.

“Consistent with the 14th Amendment, Congress could … enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship,” he wrote.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Alito wrote long dissents arguing that the framers of the 14th Amendment did not or would not have favored birthright citizenship.

They pointed to recent scholarship by law professors that raised questions about the accepted understanding of the 14th Amendment and the citizenship rule.

Thomas said citizenship of the child should turn on whether the parents were “domiciled” in this country. Black people who were enslaved were undoubtedly domiciled here, but the same is not true of temporary visitors.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch agreed in part with Thomas and questioned whether the newborns of temporary visitors should be deemed as citizens at birth.

Many court commentators were surprised by the close 5-4 divide on the constitutional issue.

“Given how clear the language was, I expected it to be 7 to 2,” said Melissa Murray, a New York University law professor. “I really gasped when I saw it was 5-4. This is not settled. We’re not done with this debate.”

Sarah Isgur, a podcaster and SCOTUSblog analyst, said that “originalism is getting more and more muddled. Either the history matters or it doesn’t.”

However, she agreed with Kavanaugh’s approach of leaving it to Congress to reconsider the issue.

Not all originalists are conservative.

Yale Law Professor Akhil Amar, a constitutional historian, argued that the history of birthright citizenship is clear and not subject to revisionist thinking. He said the Reconstruction Congress adopted this principle of citizenship at birth and stated their intent in clear words in the 14th Amendment.

“When a baby is born on American soil and an American flag flies above, that baby is a birthright citizen, as the Reconstruction Republicans across the land understood,” he wrote in February. This rule “has virtually nothing to do with the baby’s parents.”

Last week, he was mostly cheered by the court’s ruling.

“It’s a triumph, but it should have been 9-0,” Amar said on a review of the court term sponsored by SCOTUSblog. “Shame on the dissenters. They didn’t even the address the statute” and its wording.

But the majority led by Roberts “clearly affirmed the plain meaning of the constitutional text and its history. And that’s a win,” he said.

History has a recurring role at the Supreme Court.

Isgur noted the court will hear arguments in the fall on whether the 2nd Amendment of 1791 gives gun owners a right to have “assault weapons” like AR-15 rifles.

She said the court will decide then between history and changed circumstances.

At issue is whether these modern rapid-fire rifles fit within the history of the gun rights protected by the 2nd Amendment or instead represent a new and dangerous threat to public safety that was unknown in 1791.

Scalia’s opinion upholding gun rights in 2008 is often cited as a model of originalism, but it too emerged from a court divided 5-4.

The 2nd Amendment says, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bears Arms, shall not be infringed.”

For decades, the Supreme Court had all but ignored the 2nd Amendment, viewing it as a somewhat outdated provision involving militias, akin to the 3rd Amendment. It forbids having soldiers “quartered in any house … in time of peace.”

Four liberal dissenters in 2008 said the court should stand by that understanding of history.

Justice John Paul Stevens said the 2nd Amendment was added to the Constitution to protect state militias from federal interference. Moreover, the reference to “bear arms” suggests it was about militias, he said.

But Scalia’s opinion stands as the landmark precedent, and he said the dissenters had the history all wrong.

The right to have guns for self-defense arose in England and came to the American colonies. “By the time of the founding, the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects,” he wrote.

The 2nd Amendment did not establish a new right, he said. Rather, it “codified a pre-existing right [of] having and using arms for self-preservation and [defense],” he wrote.

“There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history,” Scalia wrote, “that the 2nd Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.”

There’s also a handy hack you should try – and it involves socks

The British Red Cross has highlighted something many of us already know: “it can be difficult to sleep in a heatwave”.

However, what fewer people realise is that the amount of sleep you get can influence how your body copes with the heat – and we’re not just talking about your mood.

It explains: “If it’s too hot or too cold, your internal body temperature may be affected, disrupting your ability to fall asleep and stay asleep. This is important as getting good-quality sleep during a heatwave helps your body recover, stay cool, and maintain overall physical and mental health.

For people in vulnerable groups, getting sufficient rest is especially important. Good-quality rest can help support the immune system, improve energy levels, promote heart health, and help the body manage the additional strain caused by extreme heat.

How can I sleep during a heatwave?

Discussing how to sleep during a heatwave and periods of high temperatures, it is important to aim for the recommended seven to nine hours of sleep each night. With temperatures expected to rise across the UK this week, this is a timely reminder of the importance of prioritising rest during hot weather.

It explains: “According to the NHS, an adult usually needs between seven to nine hours sleep a night. However, this will change depending on age, health and personal circumstances. Teenagers, children and babies need more sleep than others.”

In fact, a lack of sleep, even for one night, can impact your health and may negatively affect your:

• immune system
• alertness and reaction times
• attention
• cognitive ability
• mood changes and irritability
• anxiety and depression
• quality of life and social activity

The NHS notes that there are signs and symptoms of sleep problems you should keep an eye out for.

You may:

• find it difficult to fall asleep
• lie awake for long periods at night
• wake up several times during the night
• wake up early and be unable to get back to sleep
• feel down or have a lower mood
• have difficulty concentrating
• be more irritable than usual

It adds: “Longer-term sleep problems can affect our relationships and social life, and leave us feeling tired all the time, eating more and not able to do daily tasks.”

If you regularly struggle to sleep and find it difficult to get at least seven hours of rest, consider speaking to your GP. This is particularly important if poor sleep is starting to affect your daily life and wellbeing.

Did you know that cooling your feet may help you feel cooler overall? The Red Cross suggests placing a pair of socks in the fridge during the day and putting them on before bed to create a refreshing cooling effect as you wind down for the night.

You can read more about how to stay cool and sleep during a heatwave here.

July 10 (UPI) — The Trump administration on Friday rescinded a key provision of the Endangered Species Act that protected habitat crucial to imperiled wildlife.

For 50 years, the ESA definition of “harm” included not only specific species, but also their habitat from modification or degradation.

But on Friday, the administration said it was reversing the rule to focus on “actions that directly injure or kill listed wildlife.”

“For years, federal agencies abused the ESA to obstruct lawful land use and burden American families and businesses,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a statement.

“That approach turned routine activity into a regulatory trap, drove up costs that impacted people’s lives, and expanded federal authority beyond what Congress intended,” Burgum said. “This action restores common sense, respects private property, provides much-needed certainty for landowners and follows the statute Congress actually passed.”

Enacted in 1973, the ESA has played a vital role in maintaining biodiversity.

Conservation experts say the act was key in saving many species from extinction, including the whooping crane, bald eagle and gray wolf.

Environmental advocates have vowed to sue over the rule change.

“For the first time ever, a presidential administration now claims that species protected by the Endangered Species Act shouldn’t be safe from habitat modification that destroys where they live, raise their young, or search for food,” Earthjustice attorney Kristen Boyles said in a statement.

“Let’s be clear: there is no support for the Trump administration’s rule — no scientific support, no legal support, no public support,” Boyles added. “We will see the Trump administration in court.”

On Friday, a group of retired judges stepped off a tour bus in a ritzy Michigan suburb after three days of barnstorming through corn fields, cities and coal towns in Ohio and Pennsylvania. They carried with them a message.

In courthouses and public squares, they marked the nation’s 250th anniversary with a dire warning: The rule of law in America is in grave danger. They delivered a similar message at a library in Grosse Pointe just outside Detroit — the last stop on an extraordinary tour to defend judicial independence and bolster trust in courts.

Americans’ confidence in the court system and democracy has dipped in recent years. The country is more polarized, and President Trump has repeatedly cast doubt on the fairness of the judicial system.

Some judges on the tour said in phone interviews this week that the United States was at a precipice.

“Looking back in history, we have teetered,” former Ohio Supreme Court Justice Michael Donnelly said. “This is a moment where we can decide to reinstill those beliefs that we are a country of laws and not of men.”

Judges step off the bench

The four-day tour through the Rust Belt is a sharp departure for a typically reserved and insular branch of government. Federal judges in particular largely limit their comments to the courtroom and written decisions, focusing on the facts of individual cases.

But that restraint is loosening amid a barrage of attacks by Trump and other White House officials, the administration’s rampant defiance of U.S. district court orders and its expansive view of executive power. Trump has called a district judge who ruled against one of his immigration moves “crooked” and suggested with no evidence that Supreme Court justices who struck down his tariffs were motivated by foreign interests.

More federal judges have recently begun talking about receiving death threats and profane messages, though they have not blamed Trump or any other officials. Some have blasted administration policies in sharply worded opinions that strayed beyond the legal dispute before them. Even U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has weighed in.

In an appearance in March, Roberts said personal criticism of federal judges was dangerous and had to stop. The rare rebuke from the head of the nation’s top court came two days after Trump’s remark about a “crooked” judge, though Roberts didn’t mention Trump or anyone else by name.

The U.S. Marshals Service reported 564 threats against federal judges in the government fiscal year that ended in September, up from 509 the year before.

“I don’t want to say we have moved into an era of lawlessness, but it sometimes feels that way,” said former U.S. District Court Judge Victoria Roberts, who joined the bus tour in Michigan.

Timothy Lewis, another former federal judge on the tour, said his concerns about the politicization of the judicial branch reached a tipping point a decade ago, when Senate Republicans thwarted President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Today, the rule of law is facing an “existential threat” from an ongoing breakdown of norms, according to Lewis, who spent seven years on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

“I have fundamental concerns,” he said, “about where we are headed as a nation.”

Their route has been varied

The tour started Tuesday in the western Pennsylvania town of Greensburg — once the hub of a thriving coal industry that now lures visitors from nearby Pittsburgh for highland recreation and a historic downtown.

Judges mingled with customers at a coffee shop before speaking at the domed, ornate Westmoreland County Courthouse. Then it was off to Washington, also in western Pennsylvania. The town of 13,000 people, where about 15% of the population is Black, was a key stop on the Underground Railroad and a regional base for the civil rights movement.

From there, the bus headed west for events Wednesday in Columbus, Ohio, and the city of Wooster in Amish country. The judges stopped at a Cracker Barrel restaurant on the way. They spent Thursday in Cleveland before circling Lake Erie north to Michigan.

The two groups that planned the tour — dubbed “Justice in Motion” — say they were inspired by a similar campaign in Poland in 2021 after that country’s governing party took control of key judicial institutions.

Independent Polish judges visited scores of towns to promote the rule of law and teach voters about the country’s constitution. The U.S. tour also aims to educate people.

An effort to combat misinformation about what they do

Maureen O’Connor, a former chief justice of the Ohio Supreme Court, said judges risk ceding the narrative about their roles and motives to “voices of misinformation” if they don’t speak up.

A letter she received years ago, and still keeps, reminds her of that danger. The writer accused O’Connor, a Republican, of betraying her party when she repeatedly struck down Republican-drawn legislative maps as illegal gerrymanders. “There was just a basic misunderstanding of what my role was as a judge,” O’Connor said.

O’Connor is among roughly 30 judges, including two former federal judges and two current federal judges, who participated in the tour. One of the federal judges was nominated by a Democrat, the other three by Republicans. The state judges, some of whom are also still on the bench, represented both parties.

They were joined by former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett, former Ohio attorneys general and a few lawyers. The event was put together by the Democracy Rising Collaborative and Keep Our Republic, nonpartisan advocacy groups.

Organizers say they chose stops that would get the judges in front of as many people as possible to build connections and trust. The judges embraced that mission.

“The lifeblood of the judiciary is public confidence,” Donnelly, the former Ohio Supreme Court justice, said. “If you lose that, it’s very difficult to get it back.”

Thanawala writes for the Associated Press.

A new rule proposed by the White House Office of Management and Budget would fundamentally overhaul the way federal grants are awarded and overseen — a sweeping change that one scientific society said “would all but end the use of scientific merit in the selection of grants and programs across the government.”

Proposed in late May, the rule would give political appointees unprecedented control over federal grants for research, education and infrastructure, and specifies that government funds can only be spent on projects “aligned with administration policies and priorities,” according to a copy of the proposed rule.

The rule would also restrict research topics, limit U.S. scientists’ ability to collaborate with colleagues in other countries and make it easier for the government to suspend or cancel grants at any time.

The changes are intended to improve “transparency, accountability, and oversight for Federal awards” while “ensuring that American tax dollars are not wasted or misused,” according to the White House office.

But critics say that if the rule is implemented, the final sign-off for grants will no longer be in the hands of subject-matter experts within individual agencies, but in those of political appointees.

“This touches all parts of American life,” said Dr. Eric Rafla-Yuan, a psychiatrist who practices at the Veterans Administration and San Diego County’s psychiatric hospital.

“Control of how all of the federal grants and programs are funded will fall under a small group of highly partisan individuals who would have very few limits on how they spend these billions of taxpayer dollars,” said Rafla-Yuan, who also chairs the Committee to Protect Public Mental Health advocacy group. “This touches everyone’s life, even if they don’t realize it.”

OMB published the proposed rule May 29, opening a 45-day comment period that closes July 13.

Opposition to the proposed rule has mobilized multiple sectors of society. Professional groups representing cancer researchers, civil engineers, county governments, medical schools, housing agencies, city and municipal governments, nonprofits and others have publicly expressed concerns about potential consequences.

By midday Thursday, the Federal Register logged nearly 100,000 comments about the proposal, many of them expressing concern.

“I understand the need for oversight, fiscal responsibility, and accountability. That is not the issue,” wrote Jack Feldman, a neuroscientist who holds the David Geffen School of Medicine Chair in Neuroscience at UCLA. “The issue is whether scientific research is to be judged by scientific merit, or whether it can be approved, denied, or terminated according to broad political criteria that may change from one administration to the next.”

Crucially, the rule converts policies governing federal grants from “guidance” into binding regulations that all agencies would be required to follow. It would give political appointees power to override federal agencies’ merit-based reviews and mandate that a political appointee review decisions to ensure that all awards “demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities.”

The elevation of political appointees in what were previously merit-based decisions has alarmed many scientists.

“The proposed rule changes would all but end the use of scientific merit in the selection of grants and programs across the government,” read a statement from the Planetary Society, a nonprofit dedicated to space research.

Researchers and science groups have also expressed concern about a section of the rule prohibiting the promotion of “theories of disparate-impact liability” — a legal concept that refers to policies that appear neutral but cause disproportionate harm to certain groups.

The section’s vague language and many loopholes could have a chilling effect on any research that studies the effects of a disease, policy or public health intervention on any specific group of people, Rafla-Yuan said.

As an example, he said, “if there’s a specific age range that is at higher risk for suicide, and we want to figure out, well, what’s going on with people that are aged 14 to 19 … we can’t do that under the wording in this rule.”

New restrictions on collaborations with scientists in other countries would hinder opportunities for U.S. researchers and limit innovation, said Joanne Padrón Carney, chief government relations officer for the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science.

“Science is a global enterprise. Especially in biomedical and public health fields, diseases don’t care about borders or government policies,” she said.

California’s congressional delegation sent a letter Wednesday asking OMB to rescind the proposal, outlining concerns about its impact on scientific innovation, U.S. competitiveness and the fiscal stability of local governments, many of which rely on federal grants for local services.

The proposed rule grants the federal government broad powers to suspend or cancel grants for any reason, introducing “unprecedented unpredictability into local governance,” the lawmakers wrote, “leaving vital infrastructure projects unfinished and abandoning vulnerable populations who rely on these services.”

Republican Sen. Susan Collins has also asked the White House to withdraw certain parts of the letter and extend the public comment period, saying the proposed rule as written would “harm small and rural communities, undermine scientific and biomedical research, and conflict with Congress’ control over the federal funding process.”

THE rollout of a new visa system for Brits entering Europe is set to be delayed AGAIN.

First announced in 2016, the new ETIAS will be required by all UK travellers visiting countries in the EU.

Similar to the ESTA required to visit America, it will be a ‘visa-waiver’ that lasts three years, or until the passport expires.

However, the introduction of the scheme has faced years of delays – and is likely to be be delayed even further.

This is due to the chaos of the EES system that launched in April, requiring lengthy biometric checks from all non-EU visitors.

Not only has this led to queues as long as five hours, but hundreds of passengers have even missed their flights.

Read more on Europe travel

EU-R ON

What’s the difference between EES and ETIAS? New travel rules this year explained

LINE UP

Fears of more summer holiday queues as EES border points ‘won’t open’ in time

And this is before the busy peak period, with fears of a “complete collapse of the system” during the summer holidays, according to the head of Europe’s airport trade body.

In response, the launch of ETIAS is now expected to be pushed back to 2027.

According to the FT, EU-Lisa – in charge of the ETIAS rollout – has expressed concerns over it being ready to go this year.

One person said they needed to “clean up EES” before they thought of launching it.

Initially thought to launch back in June, a confirmed launch date is expected to be discussed again in September.

When it does start, all travellers aged 18-70 will have to pay €20 (£18) for the ETIAS.

Anyone outside of this age bracket still need to apply, but will get it free of charge.

Applications will only take a couple of minutes to complete, but it may take up to 30 days to be approved.

EXPLAINER

The far-right leader could be prevented from running for president in 2027 if embezzlement charges are upheld.

France’s appeal court is set to deliver a key verdict on whether Marine Le Pen and other members of her National Rally party misused European Parliament funds in the hiring of aides between 2004 and 2016.

If, on Tuesday, the court upholds her 2025 conviction, which saw her barred from office for five years and sentenced to house arrest, Le Pen – one of the most prominent figures of the European far right and a frontrunner in polls for France’s 2027 contest – is likely to be unable to stand in presidential elections next year.

On Wednesday last week, Le Pen said that even if the court only upholds the order for her to wear an electronic bracelet, she will not stand. “If I can be a candidate, I will be a candidate, provided that I am able to campaign,” the 57-year-old political firebrand told LCI channel.

“Because if I’m allowed to be a candidate but am effectively prevented from campaigning freely, then you understand that wouldn’t be possible.”

What was Le Pen convicted of?

In March 2025, a Paris criminal court ruled that Le Pen was at the heart of “a fraudulent system” that her party used to siphon off EU Parliament funds worth 2.9 million euros ($3.32m).

The court also fined the National Rally party 2 million euros ($2.29m), half of which was suspended.

She had been accused of using money intended to finance the costs of parliamentary ⁠assistants to pay employees working for her political party. EU politicians ⁠are allocated funds to cover expenses, including salaries for parliamentary assistants, but are not allowed to use them for party activities.

Le Pen was ordered to stand trial in 2023, after a seven-year investigation, alongside more than two dozen other defendants. She and her party have denied the accusations, arguing the ⁠money had been used legitimately and that prosecutors had applied an overly narrow definition of what a parliamentary assistant does.

What were the political implications of the verdict?

As part of the initial verdict last year, Le Pen was given a five-year ban from holding elected office and sentenced to two years’ house arrest with an electronic bracelet. Since France will hold the first round of its next presidential election on April 18, 2027, with a run-off set for May 2, Le Pen will not be able to run if she loses the appeal.

The far-right leader has pledged to put up a fight if she’s barred from running. “If I cannot be a candidate, I will make use of every available avenue of appeal,” Le Pen said.

She could go, therefore, to France’s highest court, the Court of Cassation, which does not judge the facts but checks whether the courts and court of appeal have applied the law correctly. The court could take about six months to hear the case and issue a verdict.

If allowed to run, Le Pen is widely seen as a top contender to succeed centrist President Emmanuel Macron in the 2027 election. If not, her 30-year-old protege Jordan Bardella would likely run instead.

What could the Court of Appeal decide?

The appeal court could overturn Le Pen’s conviction in its ruling on July 7, leaving her free to run for president next year. Legal experts say that outcome appears unlikely, however, given the court’s findings at first instance.

The court can instead uphold Le Pen’s conviction. If it confirms the five-year ban requested by prosecutors, it will rule her out of the presidential race, paving the ‌way for Bardella to take her place. Le Pen can then appeal to the Court of Cassation.

A third possibility is that the court upholds the conviction but softens the sentence. If the ban from public office were lifted or shortened to two years or less, the door to a presidential bid would be open.

Heathrow Airport has issued a reminder to travellers

A major UK airport has issued a reminder to travellers ahead of what is anticipated to be an exceptionally busy summer period for international travel.

Hundreds of thousands of people transit through Heathrow Airport daily, and a message on the airport’s official X account is encouraging those with upcoming trips to “just remember”. The social media post reads: “With over 100 touchless water stations at Heathrow, you’re never too far from staying hydrated. Just remember to empty your reusable metal or double-walled water bottle before security, and top it up before you fly.”

Heathrow scrapped the 100ml rule earlier this year, meaning travellers passing through the nation’s largest airport can now keep liquids in containers up to two litres in their bags while going through security, following the completion of its deployment of new advanced CT scanners.

Electronics such as laptops can also remain in luggage, while transparent plastic bags for liquids are no longer required. The regulation change only applies to departures from Heathrow, and travellers must verify restrictions on baggage at the airports they are flying back from before boarding flights to the UK.

Back in January a DfT spokesperson said: “Heathrow is the latest UK airport to complete its rollout of next-generation security equipment for passengers, helping ensure security checks remain robust and can be completed smoothly.

“Airports are responsible for the installation and operation of security equipment. Passengers should continue to check security requirements with airports before they travel and come prepared with liquids in containers no larger than 100ml in hand baggage unless advised otherwise.”

A mother has been left stranded with her two-year-old daughter after a new passport rule that was ‘quietly introduced’ prevented them from flying back to the UK

A new passport rule left a mum and her two-year-old daughter stranded abroad with no way of getting home.

Tegan van der Merwe, 25, and her toddler were refused permission to fly back to the UK, despite living in Britain for more than two decades. Now they’re trapped in Mallorca and fear they could be there for weeks.

She said: “It’s a terrifying situation to be in with a young child – we’re not safe here. We had to find the cheapest place to stay next to a strip of drunk people because we are completely stranded.”

The mum, from Manchester, had travelled to Palma de Mallorca for a five-day holiday with her daughter. But she said they were stopped at immigration because they both travel on Dutch passports, despite her holding settled status and her daughter automatically qualifying for British citizenship after being born in the UK.

She said they were later told the problem stemmed from a rule introduced in February requiring British dual citizens to prove their right to live in the UK before travelling. Under the changes, travellers can no longer rely on a foreign passport alone and must instead carry a valid British passport or a Certificate of Entitlement.

Left with no way home, Tegan and her daughter were advised to visit the British Consulate in Palma. They have since been forced to leave their hotel and move into a cheaper self-catering apartment close to a busy strip near Magaluf left with no way home.

Tegan travelled to the consulate on Monday, catching buses before walking for more than an hour in the heat with her daughter. But she claimed she was met with a hostile response when she arrived.

She told the Daily Mail: “The consulate wouldn’t even open the door. I was told to speak to someone over the phone and put a Spanish address to get documents to apply for a British passport sent to me.

“We were also told we had to get photocopies of everything – which meant walking even further and getting buses to try and find a post office or library which had a printer.”

Tegan said she then paid 60 euros to send off the forms and feared she could now be stranded in Spain for up to six weeks while waiting for the passports to be processed. She now has little money left after spending much of it on the holiday, and is unable to earn an income while stuck overseas.

She said: “She has her ups and downs throughout the day, we’re just trying to make it as normal as we can for her. I’m just worrying about where the money is coming from, stressing about everything, and worrying that ultimately we could end up on the street if we don’t get help.”

The ordeal has also left Tegan facing problems back in the UK. She said she has been forced to hand in notice on the home she rents in Manchester because she cannot work while stranded abroad, and now expects to move in with her mother once they are eventually able to return.

The experience has left Tegan wanting to “renounce” both her and her daughter’s British citizenship after feeling completely “abandoned by the Government”.

She added: “I don’t want to live in the country anymore, the way we have been treated. It’s like we are criminals – why can a two-year-old not re-enter the country and at least be held and questioned there? It’s terrible.”

As parts of the UK are set to get warmer again this weekend, Brits should be aware of little-known beach rules

England’s south-west coastline is famed for boasting an abundance of beautiful beaches to discover. From breathtaking coves that can hold their own against Greece’s white sand shores, to Blue Flag-awarded stretches, the UK’s magnificent coast is difficult to surpass.

Blue Flag beaches are acknowledged for their exceptional levels of cleanliness and dedication to safeguarding the natural environment, but this is no simple achievement. Keeping the coastline in immaculate condition can prove quite demanding, particularly during the busy summer months when parts of the UK welcome a great number of visitors to its shores.

While some regulations are relatively straightforward to observe, and anticipated of those visiting the beach, particularly regarding staying safe on the shore, other regulations are enforced more rigorously.

Standard beach etiquette involves noting which flags are flying and refraining from entering the water in hazardous conditions, as well as not disturbing local wildlife during your visit.

It can also involve being considerate of fellow beachgoers by keeping music at a reasonable volume and remembering to collect your litter, but some regulations are, in reality, legally enforceable and could get you into trouble if breached, reports Devon Live.

For those with dogs, the Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) enables numerous local councils to implement seasonal limitations on dogs on beaches during peak periods, but other laws may take you by surprise.

Understanding the laws can prevent a relaxing day at the seaside from becoming a stressful, and expensive, outing. One seemingly innocent activity is in fact prohibited on British beaches and could result in a penalty of up to £1,000.

With the warmer weather this weekend and holiday season rapidly approaching, ecology specialists at Arbtech are urging beachgoers to bear in mind that taking pebbles, seashells or sand from British beaches is actually against the law.

Many visitors to the seaside might be tempted to slip a pebble into their pocket as a keepsake after a glorious day by the sea, yet what most people don’t realise is that this is illegal under the Coast Protection Act 1949.

Stones, shells and even items such as driftwood all play a vital role in maintaining coastal ecosystems, and removing them risks causing serious damage to these environments.

Arbtech’s Andrew Ward commented: “One person taking a pebble or shell may not seem like much, but when thousands of visitors are doing the same, it can have drastic impacts on the coastal environment. Over time, we could start to see increased erosion, the loss of natural sea defences, and disruption to habitats that many species rely on.”

Local councils are responsible for enforcing this rule, particularly at popular tourist destinations where the problem has previously occurred.

Andrew added: “The law is clear and it’s not just there to spoil any fun. It’s a reminder that beaches are protected for a reason. We all have a role to play in preserving the environment so that it can continue to thrive for generations to come.”

While gathering seashells may bring back fond childhood memories and look charming on a windowsill, these natural treasures are essential for providing microhabitats to a wealth of local wildlife. Capturing a photo of the beach on your phone or camera is a far safer, and most likely more affordable, way to preserve the memory of the UK’s stunning coastline.

Travel could be about to get faster for some families this summer at dozens of UK airports

Families are being reminded that a major change to a key rule across more than a dozen UK airports will come into effect this summer. From next week, on July 8, a security rule will be eased for certain primary school-age children.

Back in May, the UK Government announced that up to 1.5 million more children would soon be able to use UK eGates, helping to speed up the process for them and their families during the summer holidays. Children aged eight and nine, who are at least 120cm (3ft 11in) tall and travelling with an adult, will become eligible under the new measures that come into force on Wednesday, July 8.

Officials say the change to the age threshold will be a welcome relief for families returning home from their holidays with young children in tow. The government claims that passing through an eGate typically takes just a matter of minutes.

With greater numbers of passengers making use of eGates, waiting times at passport control are also anticipated to fall. Prior to 8 July, eGates were generally available to those aged 10 and above, though children under 17 were required to (and must still be) accompanied by an adult, reports the Express.

Passengers are eligible to use an eGate if they have a biometric symbol on the front cover of their passport and are either:

• a British citizen
• a national of an EU country, Australia, Canada, Iceland, Japan, Liechtenstein, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, South Korea, Switzerland or the USA
• a member of the Registered Traveller Service

Minister for Migration and Citizenship, Mike Tapp said: “Travel with young children can be stressful for parents. By expanding eGate access, more families can experience a swifter and smoother journey home – freeing up precious time this summer holiday season. We are delivering continued improvement to the passenger experience, while keeping our borders safe and secure.”

Border Force Director General, Phil Douglas said: “eGates are an essential part of keeping our border secure. Expanding access for families will deliver safe, smooth journeys whilst freeing up highly-skilled officers to focus on intercepting those who pose a threat to the UK.”

Karen Dee, Chief executive of AirportsUK, the trade body for UK airports, said: “This is a welcome development as it will give more families the ability to take advantage of this technology, speeding up the border process and reducing waiting times for many. Airports work very hard with border authorities to ensure the UK’s front door is both secure and welcoming, with those coming home and visiting enjoying a smooth experience.”

The UK first introduced ePassport gates at airports in 2008, with the very first gate going live at Manchester Airport. Initially, the automated gates were limited to UK, EU, and Swiss citizens but have since expanded to include eligible travellers from dozens of countries, including the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

Full list of UK airports with eGates (as of July 2026):

1. London Heathrow
2. London Gatwick
3. London Stansted
4. London Luton
5. London City
6. Manchester
7. Birmingham
8. Edinburgh
9. Glasgow
10. Bristol
11. Newcastle
12. Cardiff
13. East Midlands
14. Southampton
15. Southend

June 30 (Asia Today) — Major Washington lobbying firms are ending their relationships with Alibaba, Tencent and other Chinese companies as a new U.S. defense-contracting restriction takes effect Tuesday.

Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, Mercury Public Affairs and MO Strategies were among the influential firms that recently terminated contracts with the Chinese technology companies, Bloomberg reported Monday.

Public lobbying disclosures showed Alibaba had lost five lobbying firms and Tencent had lost four over the past week. MO Strategies said it would comply fully with the new Defense Department requirements.

The shift follows the implementation of Section 851 of the fiscal 2025 National Defense Authorization Act.

The provision prohibits the Defense Department from awarding contracts to a company, including its parent companies and subsidiaries, if that company retains a covered lobbyist who also lobbies for a Chinese business on the Pentagon’s Section 1260H list.

The law does not directly prohibit lobbying firms from representing Chinese companies. In practice, however, it forces firms to choose between Chinese clients on the list and U.S. companies seeking Defense Department business.

The Pentagon established the Section 1260H list under the fiscal 2021 defense authorization act to identify companies it considers affiliated with China’s military or contributors to Beijing’s military-civil fusion strategy.

The Defense Department added Alibaba and dozens of other companies to an updated list published June 8. The latest version includes 188 entities operating directly or indirectly in the United States, according to the department.

Tencent appeared on an earlier version of the list and remained designated in the June update.

A company’s inclusion on the list does not by itself impose comprehensive economic sanctions. Other U.S. laws, however, increasingly connect the designation to federal contracting, procurement and funding restrictions.

Alibaba filed a federal lawsuit last Tuesday seeking removal from the list. The Chinese e-commerce company said the Pentagon lacked sufficient evidence to classify it as a Chinese military company and failed to adequately consider evidence disputing the alleged ties.

Alibaba has denied that it works with the Chinese military or participates in China’s military-civil fusion strategy. Tencent has also denied military links.

Alibaba said in its lawsuit that the new lobbying restriction had already prompted several firms and individual lobbyists to indicate that they would end their relationships with the company.

The Pentagon’s expanded list and the new contracting rule are likely to increase compliance reviews among Washington lobbying firms, law firms, consultants and defense contractors.

Companies seeking Pentagon contracts may need to determine whether outside advisers represent any listed Chinese entities, even when those advisers’ work for the U.S. company is unrelated to national defense.

The development also narrows Chinese companies’ access to experienced lobbyists as they seek to challenge expanding trade, investment and national security restrictions in Washington.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260630010010558

You could also be hit with some severe penalties

A UK airport has issued a warning that holidays could be “ruined” and flights could be cancelled if travellers fail to adhere to a particular rule.

The One Too Many campaign has been introduced at more than 20 airports nationwide, including London Luton. Airport officials posted on X, formerly Twitter, on Tuesday (June 30) to draw attention to the scheme and deliver a serious warning to holidaymakers. The update cautions: “Fly responsibly and avoid disrupting passengers, or you could pay the price”.

A graphic included with the post states that “One too many is all it takes to… ruin a holiday, cause a delay, cancel a flight, divert a plane, [and/or] land YOU in jail.” The Government-backed campaign is urging passengers to “fly responsibly” or risk facing serious repercussions.

While the message was posted by the official London Luton account, the regulations apply to all UK travellers, no matter which airport you’re departing from. Passengers causing disruption on flights could be refused boarding, handed a lifetime airline ban, or hit with fines of up to £80,000 if their behaviour forces a flight diversion.

The One Too Many message is now displayed at numerous major UK airports, including London Gatwick, London Heathrow, Manchester, Liverpool John Lennon, Newcastle International, and Bristol. Karen Dee, the Chief Executive of the Airport Operators Association, said: “UK airports are committed to providing a safe and enjoyable travel experience for all passengers.

“We urge travellers to enjoy their journeys responsibly and not ruin their holidays or the holidays of others. Airports will continue to monitor and act against any disruptive behaviour to ensure everyone’s safety.”

First introduced in 2018 with backing from the government, the One Too Many campaign has received support from both the Department for Transport and the Home Office.

California officials cheered a U.S. Supreme Court ruling Monday that allows states to continue counting mail ballots postmarked by election day but received in the days after — calling it a win for voter participation and access, including in the upcoming November midterm.

They also acknowledged delays in recent vote counting have spurred frustration, and promised to speed the process through other solutions — including by investing millions into new election infrastructure and vote processing capabilities.

Gov. Gavin Newsom — who called the court ruling a “win for voters, plain and simple” — has previously said the state should be able to count ballots faster, and his latest budget includes $29 million for “increased staffing, technology and equipment upgrades and purchases for counties,” $10 million for voter education and outreach at the state and county levels and $750,000 for combating election misinformation.

The court decision, a loss for President Trump and other critics who contend such policies contribute to unacceptable delays in vote counting, specifically upheld a Mississippi policy to accept mail ballots received within five business days of an election.

But it also lets stand similar policies in other states — including California, which counts ballots postmarked by and received within seven days of an election.

California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, who has long prioritized voter participation over a speedy count, called the high court’s ruling a “win for voters, for the rule of law, and for the future of our democracy.”

She said that she will “keep working to ensure every eligible Californian has the opportunity to be heard, because our democracy is strongest when every voice and vote count.”

Dean Logan, head of the Los Angeles County registrar-recorder/county clerk’s office, said in a statement to The Times that the ruling “affirms what Los Angeles County voters deserve: the assurance that a ballot cast by Election Day will be counted if received within the legal timeframe established in State Law.”

“Our office will continue to provide voter education, multilingual outreach, and leverage available resources to ensure voting access for our 5.8 million registered voters,” Logan said.

Many voting rights experts agree California’s vote counting should and could be faster, but disagree with the Trump administration’s efforts to step in with policies such as election day deadlines.

In 2024, California counted more than 406,000 late-arriving mail ballots, but they represented only about 2.5% of the statewide total. Experts say California’s delayed results have far more to do with the massive influx of mail ballots that are placed in ballot drop boxes or arrive at processing facilities on or just before election day.

Rick Hasen, an election law expert and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA Law, said the court’s decision was a “symbolic loss” for Trump, in that the court rejected his preferred policy on mail ballots, but “doesn’t appreciably change how long it takes to count ballots” because late-arriving ballots were never the problem.

In a report published Thursday, the California Voter Foundation recommended statewide adoption of “sign, scan, and go” programs that allow elections officials to immediately process mail ballots that voters submit in person at polling centers or drop boxes.

The foundation recommended ballot curing programs that speed up the process by utilizing a secure text platform when double checking whether a ballot is legitimate when a voter’s signature doesn’t match state records.

It also urged the state to invest $35 million in a voter education campaign to encourage early ballot returns, and more than $55 million in improving counting capacity and efficiency in county elections facilities.

Trump and other conservatives had called for an end to state policies allowing late-arriving mail ballots to be counted as an overdue fix to a voting system that often can’t produce election results in close races for days after polls close, as was the case in California’s recent primary races for governor and L.A. mayor.

Trump has pointed to California’s time-consuming count as proof of widespread fraud to undermine Republican candidates, though he has never produced evidence to support that claim and Democrats have fiercely denied it.

On Monday, Trump called the high court’s decision to uphold such state policies a “tremendous loss,” and more reason to pass the Save America Act — a bill he has backed that would enforce new voter ID and proof of citizenship requirements and ban mail ballots except for military personnel, individuals suffering from illness, disability, and in other rare circumstances.

He said politicians have “no excuse” other than “CHEATING!” to oppose such measures, especially at “a time when there is a powerful Communist Movement taking place in our Country, one more dangerous than World War I, World War II, Pearl Harbor, or September 11th.”

But California leaders rejected that — saying the criticisms of mail ballots are baseless and an attempt by Trump and his allies to undermine elections in which they are poised to lose, particularly in big blue states such as California, by attempting to wrest control over voting processes that have always been the purview of states, not the federal government.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said Monday that states have been “primarily responsible for regulating elections” since the nation’s founding, and his office was “pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court has respected that authority.”

“Today’s decision recognizes a basic reality: Mail delays happen. When people vote by election day, their ballots should not be discarded because of those delays,” he said.

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, which has oversight over federal elections, praised the high court Monday for acknowledging that nothing in federal law precludes states from counting mail ballots in the days after an election.

“Today’s decision is a victory for voting rights and a rejection of Trump’s attacks on mail and absentee voters,” Padilla said.

Liberal groups and many voting rights experts also hailed the ruling as a win for voters.

Moving up deadlines for mail ballots is just one effort in a much broader political war over voting and the rules that govern it. The U.S. Constitution generally gives states the authority to run their own elections, but the Trump administration has been trying to assert greater federal control — especially around mail ballots.

Earlier this year, Trump signed an executive order directing the U.S. Postal Service to assert control over mail balloting by designing new envelopes with special bar codes that would allow the federal government to ensure ballots only go to and get returned by eligible voters. The order prompted the Postal Service to propose new rules requiring states to hand over their voter mailing lists so it could implement Trump’s directive.

In a letter to U.S. Postmaster ‌General David Steiner on Wednesday, Democratic senators denounced the proposed rule as an “unconstitutional and illegal attempt to transform [USPS] into an election administration agency controlled by the White House and President Trump.”

In a Senate hearing the same day, Steiner said that under the new rule, the USPS would not mail the ballots of a state that refused to turn over its voter lists, but also that his agency would adhere to any court orders curtailing its implementation.

On Thursday, just such an order came down in a federal case in which California and other Democrat-led states challenged Trump’s executive order. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani ruled that the Constitution does not grant the president “any specific powers over elections,” and blocked his order as unlawful.

Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar, who is chair of the Democratic Assn. of Secretaries of State, said states such as California were right to focus on increasing investment in their own election infrastructure rather than accepting the Trump administration’s “bad policy ideas” for speeding things up.

Newsom’s office on Monday said that is exactly what California has been doing. It pointed to laws passed by the state Legislature last year that allow election officials to begin processing mail ballots earlier and require them to finish counting ballots sooner.

BBC Morning Live presenter Gethin Jones co-hosts the show alongside Helen Skelton and Michelle Ackerley

Gethin Jones has been a co-host of BBC’s Morning Live for more than five years.

The 48-year-old has won over audiences with his approachable demeanour as he fronts the daily magazine programme alongside Helen Skelton and Michelle Ackerley.

However, the former Blue Peter host has now been reminded of the BBC’s editorial guidelines after he reportedly contravened broadcasting rules while on air.

Gethin is a longstanding ambassador for the Welsh heritage jewellery brand Clogau and has appeared in numerous promotional campaigns for the company. He even has a Clogau ‘wife’ – model Nikki Chislett, with whom he promoted last Christmas’s festive jewellery range while sporting a wedding band.

But The Mail on Sunday has now reported that Gethin has also been seen wearing various timepieces from Clogau while hosting Morning Live – which places him in breach of stringent BBC guidelines, reports Wales Online.

The corporation’s regulations stipulate that presenters ‘must not appear on-air wearing clothing or using products or services which they have been contracted to promote’.

BBC Studios told The Mirror: “We have clear guidelines around presenters’ commercial activities while working with the BBC, and Gethin has been reminded of these guidelines.”

According to The Mail on Sunday, throughout the past eight months Gethin has sported numerous Clogau watches on Morning Live, including a £550 model featuring a stainless-steel case and black bezel. Another timepiece, priced at £420, features a polished stainless-steel case with gold plating and is accompanied by a black leather strap.

He has additionally been spotted sporting a stainless-steel watch displaying a textured black dial alongside contrasting silver-tone hands and numerals.

Gethin becomes the most recent personality to seemingly flout BBC regulations. Monty Don, 70, received a reprimand last month following his appearance in a £300 Barbour jacket while filming Gardeners’ World – having previously featured in an advertising campaign for the brand.

The Mirror revealed that the jacket features in promotional material for Barbour’s Way of Life campaign, which prompts fans to “shop the look” showcased by the television presenter.

At the time, the BBC stated: “We have clear guidelines around presenters’ commercial activities while working with the BBC, and Monty has been reminded of these guidelines.”

Morning Live is on BBC One weekdays at 9.30am and BBC iPlayer

Here’s who doesn’t need to scan their fingerprints to enter the Schengen area

Under new regulations, those travelling on a UK passport are permitted to visit the Schengen area for no more than 90 days within any 180-day period.

On top of this, upon entering the zone, which includes Spain, most British travellers will be required to scan their passport, have their photo taken, and provide four fingerprint scans under the new Entry/Exit System (EES). Once registered for travel via the EES, your digital record remains valid for three years or until your passport expires, whichever occurs first within that three-year window.

The Schengen area comprises the following countries: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland.

That said, not every traveller departing from the UK will be required to scan their fingerprints upon arrival in the Schengen zone.

The Government has confirmed that all children under 12 will not be fingerprinted. However, under the new EU regulations, all travellers, including babies, will be photographed and have digital records created.

British holidaymakers may be exempt from the EES if they are travelling on a non-UK passport. For instance, those holding an Irish passport will not be required to use the EES scheme.

According to recent estimates, more than a third of a million UK residents hold both UK and Irish passports – a figure that has risen sharply in the wake of Brexit.

A passenger demanded answers after she claimed she was told she was not entitled to compensation for a flight delay

TUI has explained a strict 72-hour rule after a customer took to Facebook to complain that she had been turned down for compensation despite facing a lengthy delay. The passenger, named Elaine, said they had been due to travel to Newcastle from Tunisia last week only for the flight to be cancelled.

Posting on TUI UK Official Customer Service – Help & Advice, she said: “Just been informed from Tui that we are not entitled to compensation! TOM869 leaving Tunisia to Newcastle, all day spent at the airport 19th June flight finally cancelled, and overnight accommodation finally organised.

“WE returned to the airport on the 20th to experience a 5 hour delay! Disgusting always highly regarded Tui disgraceful experience and treatment.”

According to another poster they had been due to be on the same flight but there were several issues which led to the delays. Angela said: “I was on this flight, or rather i wasnt haha, but the reason given was the plane needed a deep clean and there was no one in Tunisia to do it, then the plane they were sending for us on Saturday had a fuel leak so they then had to get another plane sent from Gatwick.”

Many other TUI passengers defended the travel firm with many singing its praises. Peter said: “We were delayed coming home on Friday a couple of years ago, we had the claim form by Monday and the compensation in our bank by the end of the week.”

Christine said: “Had a delay outbound a couple of years ago. On arrival we received an email from TUI apologising, and a link to be able to claim compensation. We claimed as instructed and the money was credited to our bank well before the return flight. Can’t get better than that.”

Teresa added: “Why are you blaming Tui? Delays are the last thing airlines want as it costs them lots of money. Usually mechanical or logistical/,operational reasons for delays. We were delayed in LAX for 26 hours 3 years ago. Got a voucher for a coffee and an overnight stay in a hotel but not entitled to anything else.”

And in reply, Dannii from TUI, explained the rules telling her she had not been turned down but had claimed too soon. Dannii said: “I have taken a look and you haven’t been denied, you have put the claim in too early, you need to wait at least 72hours after the flight has landed before a claim can be made.

“So please try again after 72 hours has been since you landed. This was mentioned in the email sent, and will work once you are within the time frame.”

The TUI website also sets out the 72-hour rule which is in place for all flights with TUI. It advised: “Please note, if you’ve been impacted by a flight cancellation, you’ll need to wait 72 hours before you submit your claim. Unfortunately, any claims submitted within 72 hours cannot be processed.”

MINNEAPOLIS — A federal judge has blocked an attempt by the Trump administration to subpoena Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and other state officials, calling it an effort to “harass and retaliate against them.”

In a ruling unsealed Monday, U.S. District Judge Patrick Schlitz found the “dominant purpose” of the subpoenas was to “coerce Minnesota officials into assisting the federal government with enforcing civil immigration law and to harass and retaliate against them for failing to do so.”

The subpoenas were served in January as part of an investigation into whether Walz and other officials obstructed or impeded law enforcement during a sweeping immigration operation in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area.

The subpoenas, which seek records, were sent to the offices of Walz, Atty. Gen. Keith Ellison, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her and officials in Ramsey and Hennepin counties.

The judge ruled that there appeared to be “extremely weak to nonexistent” connections between the information sought in the subpoenas and any possible criminal violation. The subpoenas seek materials “that largely if not entirely relate to constitutionally protected conduct,” the judge wrote, noting that Minnesota has the legal right not to devote its resources to enforcing federal immigration law.

The Justice Department “is not conducting a criminal investigation,” the judge wrote, “but is instead using the grand jury process for other (unlawful) purposes.”

The evidence that the subpoenas were issued for unlawful reasons is overwhelming, the judge said, arguing that the Justice Department “has struggled — without success — to identify a single plausible investigatory justification” for them.

Walz, in a statement, called the ruling “a victory for the rule of law and our democracy.”

“The U.S. Justice Department is pursuing criminal investigations into the President’s political opponents,” said Walz, the 2024 Democratic nominee for vice president. “This case was just one example of that, but we are seeing daily reminders of this administration’s lawlessness — in Minnesota and around the country. We all must continue to seek justice and uphold the rule of law.”

Ellison said “it should disturb every American that Donald Trump is weaponizing the criminal justice system against people he disagrees with.”

The subpoenas are “a politically motivated retaliation against our city for lawfully standing up to ICE and fighting for our residents,” Her said in a statement, referring to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Frey said the investigation was “never about justice, law, and order, but the absence of it.”

“Subpoenaing political opponents because they spoke on behalf of their constituents violates the core tenets of our democracy and human decency,” he said.

Frey also observed that criticizing government action is not a crime.

“One of the defining strengths of our democracy is the ability to challenge those in power without fear of retribution. Elected officials have both the right and the responsibility to speak honestly about how government decisions affect the people they serve,” he said.

Bauer and Richer write for the Associated Press. AP writer Eric Tucker in Washington contributed to this report.

Passengers flying on popular budget airlines this summer have been warned over a 32kg bag rule that many holidaymakers don’t know about, and it can see your suitcases turned away at check-in

There are endless packing hacks online to help you minimise the amount you take on a plane, but let’s face it, some of us just like to take a lot of extra stuff when we go on holiday.

And it’s not always out of choice. If you’re travelling with a baby, or you need to pack medical equipment, the size of your suitcase can soon grow and the luggage scales at the airport could end up groaning under the weight of your luggage.

Some passengers who travel as a group will use a bag-pooling hack. This means their luggage allowance as a group is spread between multiple cases. For example, if you travel as a couple and buy two 20kg bags, you could have one that weighs 30kg and one that weighs 10kg. But this travel hack does have a major exception some travellers don’t know about.

Not only do airlines’ policies vary on bag-pooling, with each one having its own rules about whether you can use this method, there’s also a strict upper weight limit for a single piece of luggage.

This rule isn’t about the airlines trying to charge extra for luggage. Bags need to stay under a certain weight due to baggage handlers having restrictions on how much they can lift. For most carriers, this is a strict 32kg weight limit for a bag or any item being checked in. Anything tipping the scales over this weight could therefore be refused at the check-in desk.

Here’s a look at what the UK’s most popular airlines say about upper weight limits and whether they allow bag pooling on their flights.

EasyJet

On easyJet’s website, it explains the rules about upper weight limits and sharing baggage allowances: “If you’re travelling with family or friends on the same flight and booking, you can pool your total weight allowance.

“This means that the total weight allowance can be split among the total number of bags booked, as long as no single item weighs more than 32kg. Maximum total size (length + width + height) = under 275cm.”

Jet2

Recently, a passenger with a booking for 10 people took to social media to ask Jet2: “If one person is over does all the weight pool together or does everyone individual need to be 22kg?” The airline replied: “Yes you are able to pool your luggage providing you do not go over your overall weight limit and no one bag weighs more than 32kg.”

The customer then followed up to ask: “So one person won’t be charged if their case is overweight slightly and the rest are under?”, to which Jet2’s customer service representative replied: “That’s correct. If one bag is slightly over, but others are under, you will still have room within your overall allowance and will not be charged.”

TUI

Passengers flying with TUI should check their booking to see whether the flight is operated by TUI airways itself, or another carrier. Some packages booked through TUI fly with third-party airlines.

TUI’s website states: “If you’re travelling with TUI Airways, you’re allowed to pool your luggage allowance with anyone else travelling on your booking. However, each bag can only weigh up to 25kg.

“If you’re unsure of your luggage allowance, then you can find this on your booking confirmation or by logging into Manage my booking”. Passengers who have booked a TUI package with a flight on a different airline should contact the company they are flying with directly for advice.

Ryanair

Ryanair’s FAQs are very clear about bag-pooling, saying: “Yes. Bag pooling is allowed between passengers with check-in bags on the same flight reservation. This means that if you have two 20kg Check-in Bags (40kg total) on your booking, one of those bags could weigh 15kg while the other weighs 25kg.”

But it was clear about its upper weight limit, saying: “However, no bag can weigh more than 32kg.”

Have a story you want to share? Email us at webtravel@reachplc.com

His Majesty’s Passport Office issued an update

Millions of Brits planning a summer break are being told to observe a vital passport “3-week rule” following a new alert from His Majesty’s Passport Office.

The government body says that holidaymakers should allow a minimum of three weeks for their passport application to be handled and has cautioned that certain cases may take longer if further checks are needed. The reminder arrives as families gear up to travel abroad during the busy holiday period, when demand for passport renewals typically surges.

In a message to travellers, His Majesty’s Passport Office said: “Sun, sea & stress-free travel. Apply early – UK passports usually arrive within 3 weeks (longer if checks needed).”

Official guidance confirms that standard passport applications lodged in the UK are normally processed within three weeks from when the Passport Office receives the necessary documents. Nevertheless, officials emphasise that not every application can be completed within that window.

Government guidance states: “You’ll usually get your passport within 3 weeks. It may take longer than 3 weeks if we need more information, or we need to interview you. We’ll tell you this within 3 weeks.”

The Passport Office is also cautioning Brits against booking holidays before their new passport has been delivered. Its guidance states: “Do not book travel until you have a valid passport – your new passport will not have the same number as your old one.”

The guidance is especially important for travellers whose passport is set to run out before a planned journey.

Following Britain’s exit from the European Union, numerous European countries now insist that British passports must have been issued in the last 10 years and retain at least three months’ validity on the date of leaving the nation you’re visiting.

Travel industry specialists regularly caution that holidaymakers risk being refused boarding if their passport fails to satisfy their destination’s entry criteria.

Britons requiring a passport with greater urgency might be eligible to utilise the Passport Office’s premium services, such as the Online Premium and One Week Fast Track alternatives, though these come at a higher cost than the conventional application route.

Passport applications can be lodged online or via a paper form obtainable from Post Office branches, although paper submissions incur an extra charge.

Those who have already submitted their application can monitor its progress using the Government’s online passport tracking service.

Passport processing times.

The standard UK passport application service generally takes up to three weeks for completion. For individuals needing a passport more swiftly, the One Week Fast Track service aims to deliver a passport within seven days.

Travellers who need a passport straight away can opt for the Online Premium service, which provides a same-day appointment and passport collection. The Passport Office confirms that processing times only commence once all required documents have been received, which means any hold-ups in providing paperwork can prolong the total time needed to obtain a new passport. Further information is available here.

Amid the first days of grief after Alex Vesia and his wife lost their newborn daughter last fall, Vesia noticed something as he watched the World Series on television. He paused the broadcast, then checked the video, then texted another player to make sure.

51.

Dodgers teammates wore his number on their caps. So did players from the Toronto Blue Jays.

“It was awesome,” Vesia said. “It was a very heartwarming moment.”

Moving.

Touching.

And, under baseball’s rules, illegal.

Who knew, really, until this week? Three pitchers from the San Francisco Giants wrote the name of a Bible verse on their Pride Night caps and, amid an uproar, Major League Baseball said it had warned the players that “writing of any kind, with any message” on any playing apparel is not permitted. The issue, the league said in a statement, was not what they wrote on their caps but simply that they wrote on them at all.

Said MLB in the statement: “We have given the same warning numerous times in the past to players for messages such as ‘Dad’, ‘Happy Mother’s Day, I Love Mom’ and names of family members.”

To its credit, the league did not enforce the rule when Vesia’s number started appearing on caps in the World Series. But, if you’re going to draw a line on enforcement, where should you draw it?

In San Francisco, the actions of the Giants’ pitchers were widely condemned.

“They were in for a rude awakening with the response, and it wasn’t just from the gay community,” Giants broadcaster and former pitcher Mike Krukow told KNBR, the team’s flagship radio station. “It was from the Northern California community that supports the gay community.”

In response to media inquiries, and as first reported by Outsports, MLB confirmed it had warned the three players. I asked the league whether warnings had been issued in two other instances in which players had written on their caps, including Clayton Kershaw last year writing the same Bible verse on his Pride Night cap that the Giants’ pitchers wrote this year. MLB declined to comment.

“I got chastised by the league when I put Charlie [Kirk]’s name on my hat last year, because a man was murdered in cold blood,” Dodgers pitcher Blake Treinen told me, “and now these gentlemen who are relievers in San Francisco are getting chastised by the league for putting a Bible verse on their hat. It’s crazy to me.”

Treinen said league officials had told him the rule is strictly enforced.

“I straight up asked Clayton last year, ‘Did they call you when you put that on your hat?’” Treinen said. “He said, ‘No.’”

The Pride caps feature team logos decorated in the colors of the rainbow, a symbol long associated with the gay community. In the Bible verse cited by the pitchers (Genesis 9:12-16), the rainbow represents “the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures.”

That the league would warn players against writing a Bible verse on their caps ignited a wave of conservative outrage, from Vice President JD Vance to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott.

Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley fired off a letter to MLB commissioner Rob Manfred, alleging apparent discrimination “against baseball players who profess their Christian faith” and threatening the league’s antitrust exemption. Assistant U.S. Atty. Gen. Harmeet Dhillon said on national television that players might be able to file a claim for employment discrimination.

That is complete nonsense. This is what you want: When employees raise an issue to their employer, the employer listens and addresses their concerns.

In 2023, the year after five Tampa Bay Rays players declined to wear rainbow logos for Pride Night, Manfred said the league would no longer compel players to do so.

“We have told teams, in terms of actual uniforms, hats, bases that we don’t think putting logos on them is a good idea just because of the desire to protect players: not putting them in a position of doing something that may make them uncomfortable because of their personal views,” Manfred said then.

Teammates congratulate Freddie Freeman after his walk-off home run gave the Dodgers a 1-0 win on June 5, when the Dodgers held their annual Pride Night. Blake Treinen, the winning pitcher that night, elected to wear his regular Dodgers cap instead of the Pride version.

(Katelyn Mulcahy / Getty Images)

Manfred said the Pride Night celebrations could go on, however a team wished to stage them — or not, in the case of the Texas Rangers, the only one of the 30 MLB teams that declines to hold a Pride Night. And the league still sells Pride gear on its website for all teams, including the Rangers.

In the cases of the Giants and Dodgers, MLB grandfathered each team’s long-running use of a rainbow logo on the cap, with this accommodation to players: If you don’t feel comfortable wearing the Pride cap, just wear your regular cap.

That is what Treinen and outfielder Alex Call did when the Dodgers celebrated Pride Night. That is also what a fourth Giants pitcher did.

“My job is to abide by the rules,” Treinen said. “Ultimately, the only rule we have is to wear our team-issued uniform. So that’s what I chose to do.”

To Treinen, the decision over whether to wear a Pride cap is not about passing judgment on anyone else but about what he sees as the push “to force something on people that you know that is controversial to their faith — and, in fact, straight up against their faith.”

He expressed his support for the Giants pitchers.

“Kudos to those men over there who are standing strong in their faith,” he said. “It’s a sad thing to corner someone and try to make them feel bad about their convictions.”

I respect Treinen for explaining his viewpoint. To me, wearing a Pride cap for one night does not diminish your faith at all. It might sharpen your convictions. More important, it signals a welcome to everyone in the community that buys the tickets and broadcast subscriptions that help pay your salary.

“I think a few people made it about themselves and not about the community,” San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie told the Bay Area Reporter.

We always proclaim the life lessons of sports. One of them: Sometimes you have to put the team’s interests ahead of your own.

Brits who find themselves stranded in Europe due to a cancelled flights could soon have new rights to claim back travel replacement costs, amid a shake-up of the EU’s air travel rules

Cancelled flights could soon come with a more costly penalty for airlines, as a landmark air passenger rights agreement was reached between the EU Council and the European Parliament in good news for holidaymakers.

The ruling means that Brits who find themselves stranded in Europe due to their flight being cancelled could soon claim back replacement travel costs worth up to four times the price of their original ticket. It comes amid a raft of changes around airline charges for cabin bags and family seating, which could see Brits getting a fairer deal when they visit destinations such as Spain, Greece, Italy, Portugal, or France.

The law states that, after a flight cancellation, “if an airline fails to offer rerouting within three hours, passengers may organise their own rerouting and claim reimbursement of up to 400% of the original ticket price.” According to AirAdvisor, which specialise in claims for disrupted flights and mishandled baggage, this means passengers will no longer need to wait around for the airline to sort out a journey home for them.

AirAdvisor also said in a statement that this rerouting reimbursement will be separate from the standard compensation that some passengers are entitled to for cancelled flights. It explained: “The Council statement confirms that even when a passenger is rerouted, “airlines remain responsible for compensation for delays at arrival.”

This means passengers could potentially reclaim the cost of replacement flights, as well as claiming for standard cancellation compensation, which can be up to £350 per passenger for a UK to Spain flight, and higher for long-haul journeys.

“However, the standard compensation would still depend on the usual qualifying conditions, including whether the disruption was within the airline’s control. If extraordinary circumstances apply, airlines may not be required to pay financial compensation,” the statement continued.

EU rights aren’t based on nationality, but rather the route and the airline operating the flight. So even post-Brexit, Brits are protected on journeys departing from an EU airport to the UK, or any flights from the UK to the EU that are operated by an EU airline. For example, Brits taking a Ryanair flight from Malaga to the EU would be covered by the legislation.

However, flights from the UK to the EU on non-EU airlines wouldn’t be covered. So, the outbound leg of a London to Madrid flight on a carrier such as British Airways would not follow these rules because it is arriving in the EU from a non-EU country on a non-EU airline.

The UK has its own UK261 framework, which includes the Right to Care for journeys delayed over two hours, but it’s not known whether this legislation will be updated in light of the changes in the EU.

Anton Radchenko, aviation lawyer and CEO of AirAdvisor, said: “For the passengers who are genuinely in trouble, the ones standing at a desk in a European airport being told the next available flight is days away, this is the change that actually matters. A reimbursement cap of up to four times the original ticket price could make a real difference to families who suddenly have to buy last-minute flights home, and it is a part of the reform I would want every British holidaymaker to know about.”

He added: “The importance of this rule is that it gives people a clearer point at which they can act. The harder part, as with every passenger right, will be making sure travellers know it exists before they are stuck at the airport, rather than finding out months later.

“My practical advice to any traveller is straightforward. If your covered flight is cancelled, give the airline its three-hour window to offer a suitable reroute, and then keep everything: your original booking, the cancellation notice, proof of what the airline offered or failed to offer, and every receipt for the travel you arrange yourself.

“In my experience, the passengers who successfully recover what they are owed are almost always the ones who documented the situation as it happened, not the ones who tried to piece it back together weeks later. A right is only ever as useful as the evidence you keep to support it.”

Have a story you want to share? Email us at webtravel@reachplc.com