rules

Israel’s Supreme Court rejects government ban on prisoner visits, affirming Red Cross access under international law.

Israel’s Supreme Court has unanimously rejected a government policy banning representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) from visiting Palestinian detainees in Israeli prisons.

The court ruled on Wednesday that by preventing the Red Cross from visiting prisoners, the government had contravened Israeli and international law, and therefore the policy must be repealed.

It also ruled that the government failed to present a legal foundation for its policy on annulling all visits after the Hamas-led attack on October 2023, in which more than 1,100 people were killed and more than 240 were taken captive.

The assault triggered a brutal war in Gaza, which has been defined as a genocide by several prominent scholars and an independent United Nations inquiry. The Israeli army killed more than 72,950 people in the enclave, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry, and reduced most of the besieged territory to rubble, and forced the displacement of nearly 1.9 million Palestinians.

Violence across the occupied West Bank perpetrated by Israeli forces also intensified to unprecedented levels. All visits to prisoners were halted, and information about them was not shared – something that used to be standard practice before the war. Back then, Israeli authorities accused Hamas of failing to secure access to the captives in Gaza.

It was the first time in 50 years that Israel prevented Red Cross visits, according to the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), which filed the petition.

“For the first time in nearly three years, the over 9,000 Palestinian security prisoners being held in Israeli prisons and military detention centers will receive Red Cross visits,” ACRI said. The ban remained in place even after a “ceasefire” was agreed last October.

Initial petition

The petition by ACRI, Physicians for Human Rights, Israeli rights group HaMoked and Israeli NGO Gisha against the government policy was first filed in Israel’s High Court in February 2024. But the state of Israel asked for 27 extensions before a hearing was held at the end of October last year.

The ICRC welcomed the decision, saying it was ready to resume its visits. “We are continuing our dialogue with the Israeli authorities to resume our work in detention as soon as possible,” it said in a statement. It added that access to detainees and the ability to meet with them privately are obligations under international law.

Wednesday’s decision comes amid growing concerns over the ill-treatment of Palestinian detainees in Israeli prisons.

Last week, the United Nations released its annual report on conflict-related sexual violence verified in 2025. It cited torture, rape, gang rape, forced nudity and “cavity searches conducted without apparent security justification perpetrated” by Israeli armed forces and security forces primarily during detention and interrogation and across several sites, including the infamous Sde Teiman military camp, among others.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday night that Alabama Republican leaders may redraw their congressional voting districts to oust a Black Democrat and elect a white Republican.

The court’s conservatives, who ruled for Louisiana Republicans in a redistricting dispute, extended that decision to Alabama. The three liberals dissented.

The decision clears the way for the governor and state lawmakers to redraw their congressional voting map with six districts that favor Republicans and one that favors a Democrat.

“Weeks ago, I warned that vacating the District Court’s injunction in these cases would ‘unleash chaos and … confuse voters,’ ” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent. “Yet just as Alabama doubled down on racial discrimination, the Court today doubles down on chaos. Because I choose to defend the rule of law and the right of all Alabamians to participate equally in democracy, I respectfully dissent.”

The justices granted an emergency appeal that was backed by the Trump administration and set aside the decision of a three-judge panel in Alabama.

The court in a brief opinion said the three judges should not have blocked Alabama’s new map.

“While federal courts should not impose changes close to an election, states are free to decide for themselves whether last-minute changes to an election are in their best interests,” the court said.

Alabama’s emergency appeal went to Justice Clarence Thomas, who referred it to the full court.

Those three judges, two of them Trump appointees, ruled that Alabama’s state lawmakers discriminated against Black voters, who made up a near majority in the center of the state.

Three years ago, the Supreme Court agreed.

In a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the justices upheld the creation of a second district in the center of the state where Black voters had a near majority.

The result then was an Alabama state voting map that favored five Republicans and two Democrats for the House of Representatives.

But last month, in the wake of the Louisiana decision, Alabama’s lawmakers went back to court, arguing that the state may return to the voting map with only a single Black majority district.

In his appeal to the Supreme Court, Alabama’s Atty. Gen. Steven Marshall argued that the high court’s decision in favor of Louisiana “vindicates Alabama position on the lawfulness” of its earlier voting map. He said the state should not be penalized for “refusing to intentionally discriminate” to favor Black voters.

The court’s decision has cleared the way for Republican-led states in the South to flip congressional districts in Louisiana, Tennessee, Florida and now Alabama.

ANOTHER Brit was banned from boarding his flight home due to confusing passport rules recently introduced.

Dad-of-two, Kyle Harris, was refused boarding onto his booked Jet2 flight from Kefalonia in Greece back to the UK due to only having an American passport.

The 39-year-old had been on holiday with his wife and two sons and was unaware that new passport rules impacting dual-national Brits was introduced back in February.

Dual-national Brits used to be able to fly back to the UK on their second passport, which in Kyle’s case is his American passport.

However, now, a UK or Irish passport must be shown at the border or the traveller can get a digital ‘certificate of entitlement’, but this would cost a steep £589.

Ruth – Kyle’s wife – wrote on Facebook: “Imagine being told your husband can’t come home to the UK – despite living there for 39 years, paying 24 years of tax and national insurance, attending nursery, primary and secondary school, raising British children and building his entire life there.

Read more on travel inspo

TRAVEL TIP

The £2.99 SIM hack that can save Brits HUNDREDS abroad

STAYCAY

Our travel experts’ best-kept-secret UK holiday spots for summer – from £37 a night

“That’s exactly what happened to us on Saturday.

The family has had to extend their time away and has reached out to the British consulate in Greece as well as the Foreign Office in London.

Ruth added: “Not once during booking, travel, or check-in were we warned this could happen.

“Nor have we seen any of a large campaign that has apparently taken place to ensure people travelling this way know. This situation needs attention.

“How can a system be rolled out with so little communication that someone who has lived in the UK virtually their entire life suddenly feels unwelcome, forgotten, and forced to prove they belong?

“Right now my husband feels more like a foreigner than a citizen of the country he calls home.”

A Jet2 spokesperson said they were “sorry” for the situation but added: “Our cabin crew acted in accordance with government legislation and sought guidance from the Home Office, as the passenger did not have the correct documentation at the time of travel.

“We advise all customers to check Foreign Office travel requirements before travelling.”

The change comes as new Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) has been introduced, which requires all Brits to enter the UK on their British passport.

The change comes as the new Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) has been introduced, which is a £20 digital travel permit required from all non-British travellers entering the UK.

Dual-national Brits are not able to apply for one.

He also isn’t the first person to fall victim to the new rules – back in April, 26-year-old Natasha Cochrane De La Rosa was left stuck in Spain after trying to return to the UK without a British passport.

A British-French student was stuck in Madrid for the same reason, as well as an 18-year-old British-Danish student who was banned from her return flight to the UK from Mumbai.

NEW ORLEANS — A sharply divided Louisiana Supreme Court on Monday signed off on abolishing an elected office won by a New Orleans exoneree who had spent nearly 30 years in prison for murder before his conviction was vacated.

The 4-3 decision leaves Calvin Duncan with little path forward to try assuming the role of Orleans Parish clerk of criminal court, a job he won in a landmark election last year before Republican lawmakers raced to eliminate the office this spring.

In a blistering dissent, the court’s Democratic justices said the ruling opened the door to allowing Louisiana lawmakers to subvert the will of voters. The court’s conservative majority disagreed, writing that “this change was entirely within the authority of the Legislature.”

The court also rejected the New Orleans City Council’s attempt to hold a special election, which would have given Duncan the option to run again.

“At a time when our voting rights are under unprecedented attack, this decision clarifies that if we want to live in a democracy, we have to fight for it with every tool our system of government provides,” Duncan said in a statement.

Signed by Republican Gov. Jeff Landry, the bill eliminating the New Orleans clerk’s office was championed by GOP lawmakers as a necessary step toward government efficiency. Supporters denied that it had anything to do with Duncan or his past.

Democrats blasted the change as overreach from a largely white, conservative Legislature that they accused of seeking to thwart the will of a predominantly Black city. Those tensions surfaced again last month when Landry signed a new congressional map that eliminated one of the state’s two majority-Black House districts.

Duncan was convicted of a 1981 murder and was released from prison in 2011. In 2021, an Orleans Parish district judge vacated Duncan’s sentence, finding he had been unjustly convicted and the charges against him were dropped. Duncan is listed on the National Registry of Exonerations.

Brook writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — A Trump administration policy illegally banned transgender troops from military service, a divided panel of federal appeal court judges ruled on Monday.

The majority opinion by a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit largely upholds a March 2025 ruling by U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes in Washington, D.C. Reyes concluded that President Trump’s executive order to exclude transgender troops from military service likely violates their constitutional rights.

The administration appealed after Reyes issued a preliminary injunction requested by attorneys for six transgender people who are active-duty service members and two others seeking to join the military. The appeal court’s majority decided that the injunction should be narrowed to the plaintiffs currently serving in the military but not those seeking to join.

The ruling won’t immediately go into effect, allowing the administration time to ask the full appeals court to hear the case.

The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the transgender military ban to go into effect last year, as litigation continues to play out. Another lawsuit challenging the ban was filed in Washington state and led to a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs challenging the policy in that case.

In January 2025, Trump signed an executive order that claims the sexual identity of transgender service members “conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life” and is harmful to military readiness.

In response to the order, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a policy that presumptively disqualifies people with gender dysphoria from military service. Gender dysphoria is the distress that a person feels because their assigned gender and gender identity don’t match. The medical condition has been linked to depression and suicidal thoughts.

The policy “appears to be driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group: persons who identify as transgender,” Judge Robert Wilkins wrote for the majority. Wilkins was nominated to the court by Democratic President Obama.

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Justin Walker said judges lack the power to second-guess the decision to exclude transgender troops.

“We have neither the expertise nor the authority to decide whether the military can exclude the plaintiffs from its ranks. The Constitution assigns that authority to Congress and the Commander in Chief,” wrote Walker, who was nominated by Trump, a Republican.

Judge Judith Rogers, who was nominated by Democratic President Clinton, joined Wilkins’ opinion but also partially dissented.

Kunzelman and Whitehurst write for the Associated Press.

An aeroplane had to be sent back to the airport it took off from after an incident mid-air

Air travellers are being forced to think carefully about Bluetooth rules on flights after a plane was sent back to an airport and evacuated. The incident has reportedly led to the arrest of a passenger.

Headlines today suggest that refusing to follow the rules may result in the flight returning to the airport for safety reasons. On Saturday afternoon, a flight took off for Palma de Mallorca in Spain from Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey. Yet some time later, while over the Atlantic, it was forced to return to the airport it set off from due to a security emergency, reports say.

For UK travellers, the incident will emphasise the importance of following airline rules. It will also require many to check them to make sure they adhere to the guidance.

easyJet rules on Bluetooth use

easyJet’s website states that you can use portable electronic devices on board for activities such as playing games, reading e-books, watching movies and listening to your favourite music. The airline says passengers can use most devices during all parts (take-off, the flight and landing) of the journey.

The site adds: “All devices must be in ‘flight safe’ mode for taxi, take-off, inflight and landing and held securely in your hand or in your pocket. During the taxi-in to the arrival gate the cabin crew will let you know when you can make telephone calls or send text messages.”

The airline also notes that some devices can be used for boarding and in-flight provided they are in “flight safe” mode. However, this is not the case during taxi, take-off and landing – as they must then be safely stowed away in the overhead locker. These are:

• All Bluetooth accessories (wireless keyboard, headphones etc)
• Notebooks
• Large music players
• Ultra books
• Laptops
• DVD players
• Large electronic games

easyJet says that devices that do not have a “flight safe” mode will need to be turned off for the duration of the flight. There may be times when the pilot or cabin crew may ask for all electronic devices to be switched off so please follow their instructions, the airline says.

In the incident in America on Saturday, according to some passengers who spoke to the website AirLive, the crew had ordered passengers to immediately disconnect all Bluetooth devices. However, after repeated requests, at least two devices remained on.

The pilots decided to return to USA, Spanish news website El Diario reports. Reports say the threat originated from a device referred to by “a certain four-letter word.”

Passengers reportedly told aviation media that the message read ‘BOMB’. After landing back at Newark, the plane was evacuated while security staff inspected the aircraft.

The authorities later said it was the name of a device and arrested the suspect. According to media reports, he was a teenager.

Ryanair, Jet2 and TUI rules on Bluetooth use

Airline rules for UK travellers on popular carriers are clear on what passengers need to do. Ryanair’s website has a a section entitled “Will I be able to use my phone/device/electronics on board?”

It says: “Yes. You may use your laptop, tablet, smartphone and other electronic devices on board Ryanair flights. Your device will need to be switched to flight mode for the entire flight duration.

“Laptops and larger electronics can be used once the fasten seatbelt sign has been turned off. For safety reasons, these items must be kept in the overhead locker or stored in your bag under your seat when the aircraft is taxiing (moving towards the runway for take-off or towards the terminal after landing), take-off and landing stages of your flight.”

Jet2’s website also offers guidance for passengers. It says: “You can use all handheld electronic devices and Bluetooth gadgets, such as headphones, throughout the flight, as long as they’re switched to flight mode while onboard.

“Larger gadgets, such as laptops, must be switched off and put away for take-off and landing. If there are any changes to this, the captain or our cabin crew will let you know.”

TUI’s website has a similar section about using personal electronic devices on a flight. Its guidance states that passengers can use things like MP3 players, e-books, smartphones, and other handheld personal electronic devices at any time during a flight, unless they are told otherwise by the crew – “as long as they’re switched to ‘Flight Safe Mode’ or ‘Airplane Mode’.”

The site adds: “That said, please make sure you listen carefully to the safety briefing by the cabin crew. You’ll not be able to use any type of clip-on product to hold your phone or tablet on TUI flights, as you’re not allowed to attach anything to your tray tables or seats.”

The airline says that if you are carrying larger devices like laptops and larger tablets, you will be able to use them during the flight. However, it emphasises that they will need to be switched off for take-off and landing and stowed away.

The airline says: “You’ll need to take these items out of your hand luggage before you get to the security search point. This is because they’ll need extra screening. If any of your electronic devices can’t be switched to ‘Flight Safe’ or ‘Airplane Mode’, they’ll need to be switched off completely throughout the flight. Please also be aware that you won’t be able to charge your laptop on the flight.”

MISBEHAVING Brits could be slapped with a permanent flight ban under new Labour rules.

Labour Ministers are currently looking at establishing a blacklist to stop abusive behaviour towards cabin crew and disruption to travel.

This includes considering how information about drunk and abusive passengers could be shared between airlines.

Currently, if you misbehave on a flight you can be banned by the airline you are travelling with – but other airlines would not know this.

If the new rules were to go ahead, it would mean that public officials could keep information about passengers, including a history of any bad behaviour during flights.

In an airport setting, public officials would likely include police, border force officers and immigration officers.

Read more on travel inspo

TRAVEL TIP

The £2.99 SIM hack that can save Brits HUNDREDS abroad

CHEAP BREAKS

UK’s best 100 cheap stays – our pick of the top hotels, holiday parks and pubs

The official would then warn an airline if the passenger was trying to check in with them.

Then, the airline could decide whether or not they want the passenger travelling with them.

The new system would be compliant with data protection rules, so no new legislation would need to be created for the rules to be introduced.

Having said this, data protection rules don’t allow airlines to share information about travellers, hence the need for a public official.

It comes as the number of drunken and violent incidents on planes has risen in recent years.

Earlier this month, a drunk woman believed to be British lunged at another passenger, causing chaos on an easyJet flight.

A government source said: “Everyone should be able to enjoy a pint at the airport, but anti-social behaviour on flights is totally unacceptable.

“It threatens the safety of passengers and crew, and disrupts hard-earned holidays.

“There are already tough laws in place to deal with offences committed on flights, but we are exploring with industry how we can better address this issue, ensuring we crack down on people who persistently cause chaos.

“Everyone should be able to fly without fuss.”

Tim Alderslade, Chief Executive of industry body Airlines UK, said: “UK airlines have a zero-tolerance approach to disruptive behaviour.

“Additional measures for the most serious cases of disruption, including the creation of a national ban list, are an important next step in ensuring a tiny minority of passengers cannot disrupt air travel for the majority.

“We welcome the government’s support for further action and will work closely with ministers on delivering the right solutions.”

According to LBC, Phil Ward, Chief Operations Officer of Jet2, also said the airline would support new rules of sharing passenger information between airlines.

He said: “The creation of a national database will mean that, as well as being banned from flying with us, disruptive passengers can also be banned from flying with other UK airlines.”

In a recent YouGov survey of 5,000 adults, 37 per cent said they supported the proposal for new rules, with 38 per cent saying they somewhat supported it.

Only 11 per cent opposed.

Being drunk on a flight is a criminal offence and can lead to a fine of up to £5,000 and two years in prison.

A meeting will be held later this month where industry leaders will discuss the plans.

The Sun’s Head of Travel shares her thoughts

LISA Minot, The Sun’s Head of Travel, shares her thoughts:

Plans to blacklist drunk and abusive passengers on a nationwide database can’t come soon enough.

Onboard incidents have skyrocketed in recent years and a full ban on those found guilty across all airlines would be the kind of punishment that would have real consequences.

At the moment, while one airline can ban a passenger for life, data protection means other airlines are not alerted.

Having seen the chaos a drunken passenger can wreak myself on a flight from Cape Verde back to the UK anything that will show disruptive passengers there are real consequences is a good move.

Ryanair boss Michael O’Leary has repeatedly called for a ban on passengers drinking in departure lounges but why should the vast, innocent majority pay for the sins of a tiny minority?

This proposal is a much more sensible way of ensuring planes are not turned into battlegrounds without punishing the law-abiding passengers.

May 29 (UPI) — A federal judge declared a New Hampshire law that would have required new voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship because it is unconstitutional.

U.S. District Court Judge Samantha Elliott wrote in the ruling, issued on Thursday, that New Hampshire House Bill 1569 would have made it harder for people to register to vote and cast ballots by removing methods for them to do so.

The law would have required all new voters to provide a document proving citizenship, rather than attesting to their citizenship under penalty of perjury on an affidavit.

New Hampshire state law already states that the form filled out and signed when registering qualifies as an affidavit, whether it is filed 30 days before an election or on election day, per state law, Elliott wrote.

“For many years, New Hampshire voters have been required to prove their citizenship,” Elliott wrote in the ruling.

“After this order goes into effect, New Hampshire voters will still be required to prove their citizenship,” she wrote. “Instead, this case questions, in part, whether it is constitutional to remove one of the methods previously available for proving citizenship — an affidavit swearing to the voter’s citizenship under penalties of voter fraud.”

HB 1569, which was passed and signed into law in 2004, was challenged by the ACLU of New Hampshire, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Coalition for Open Democracy, the League of Women Voters of New Hampshire, the Forward Foundation, New Hampshire Youth Movement and several individual voters.

“New Hampshire’s elections have always been safe, secure and accurate — and this law could have unconstitutionally and needlessly prevented thousands of eligible voters from casting a ballot,” Henry Klementowicz, deputy legal director of the ACLU of New Hampshire, said in a press release.

“Making it harder to vote is a clear attack on one of our most fundamental of rights and this law is consigned to the dustbin of history where it belongs,” Klementowicz said.