ruling

MINNEAPOLIS — A federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota as a lawsuit over it proceeds.

Judge Katherine M. Menendez on Saturday denied a preliminary injunction sought in a lawsuit filed this month by state Atty. Gen. Keith Ellison and the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul.

It argued that the Department of Homeland Security is violating constitutional protections. The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope. Lawyers with the U.S. Department of Justice have called the lawsuit “legally frivolous.”

The ruling on the injunction focused on the argument by Minnesota officials that the federal government is violating the Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which limits the federal government’s powers to infringe on the sovereignty of states. In her ruling, the judge relied heavily on whether that argument was likely to ultimately succeed in court.

The federal government argued that the surge, which it calls Operation Metro Surge, is necessary in its effort to take criminal immigrants off the streets and because federal efforts have been hindered by state and local “sanctuary laws and policies.” State and local officials argued that the surge is political retaliation after the federal government’s initial attempts to withhold federal funding to try to force immigration cooperation failed.

“Because there is evidence supporting both sides’ arguments as to motivation and the relative merits of each side’s competing positions are unclear, the Court is reluctant to find that the likelihood-of-success factor weighs sufficiently in favor of granting a preliminary injunction,” the judge said in the ruling.

U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi lauded the ruling Saturday on social media, calling it “another HUGE” legal win for the Justice Department.

Federal officers have fatally shot two people on the streets of Minneapolis, Renee Good on Jan. 7 and Alex Pretti on Jan. 24.

Danish company will replace Hong Kong-based firm, CK Hutchison, after Trump claimed strategic waterway was controlled by China.

Danish firm Maersk will temporarily operate two ports on the Panama Canal after a court ruled that contracts given to a Hong Kong firm were unconstitutional.

The Panama Maritime Authority (AMP) announced the changes on Friday, a day after the Central American country’s Supreme Court invalidated port contracts held by Hong Kong-based firm CK Hutchison.

The court ruling followed repeated threats from United States President Donald Trump that his country would seek to take over the waterway he claimed was effectively being controlled by China.

According to the court ruling that annulled the deal, CK Hutchison’s contract to operate the ports had “disproportionate bias” towards the Hong Kong-based company.

On Friday, the AMP said port operator APM Terminals, part of the Maersk Group, would take over as the “temporary administrator” of the Balboa and Cristobal ports on either end of the canal.

Maersk takes over from the Panama Ports Company (PPC) – a subsidiary of CK Hutchison Holdings – which has managed the ports since 1997 under a concession renewed in 2021 for 25 years.

The canal, an artificial waterway, handles about 40 percent of US container shipping traffic and 5 percent of world trade. It has been controlled by Panama since 1999, when the US, which funded the building of the canal between 1904 and 1914, ceded control.

Washington on Friday welcomed the decision, but China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun said Beijing “will take all measures necessary to firmly protect the legitimate and lawful rights and interests of Chinese companies”.

For its part, PPC said the ruling “lacks legal basis and endangers … the welfare and stability of thousands of Panamanian families” who depend on its operations.

Tens of thousands of workers dug the 82km- (51-mile-) passageway that became the Panama Canal, allowing ships to pass from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic without having to travel around the northernmost or southernmost ends of the Americas.

Panama has always denied Chinese control of the canal, which is used mainly by the US and China.

Jordan Chiles might be able to keep the bronze medal she won, then was stripped of, at the 2024 Paris Olympics after all.

On Jan. 23, Swiss Federal Supreme Court sent the U.S. gymnast’s case back to the Court of Arbitration for Sport to re-examine the matter “on the basis of an audio-visual recording” that could provide evidence in Chiles’ favor, the court said Thursday in a news release.

“The Federal Supreme Court acknowledged that this new evidence may justify a modification of the contested award,” Switzerland’s highest court stated. “It referred the case back to the CAS for it to re-examine the situation, taking this new evidence into account.”

Chiles initially was deemed the fifth-place finisher in the women’s floor exercise final on Aug. 5, 2024, but was bumped up to third place after a judging inquiry placed by U.S. coach Cecile Landi gave Chiles an extra tenth of a point.

The decision resulted in a viral moment on the medal stand, as Chiles and U.S. teammate and silver medalist Simone Biles bowed to gold medalist Rebeca Andrade of Brazil.

Days later, however, the CAS ruled that Landi’s inquiry was registered four seconds too late and that Chiles’ original score of 13.666 should be restored. That decision knocked the UCLA star back down to fifth place.

Chiles, with the support of the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee and USA Gymnastics, filed an appeal of that ruling with Switzerland’s Supreme Court in September 2024. Her appeal maintains that the CAS had refused to allow video evidence she feels would show that Landi’s inquiry was filed within the required time frame.

In its Thursday statement, the Swiss court acknowledged that the video could “lead to a modification of the contested award in favour of the applicants, since the CAS could consider, in the light of this audio-visual sequence, that the verbal inquiry made on behalf of Jordan Chiles had been made before the expiry of the regulatory one-minute time limit.

“The Federal Supreme Court therefore partially overturns the contested award and refers the case back to the CAS for a new ruling, taking into account the probative value of the audio-visual recording in question.”

In a statement emailed to The Times on Thursday, the CAS agreed with the Swiss court’s ruling that “new evidence provided by the athlete after the CAS decision justifies a re-examination of the appeal.”

“During the Olympic Games, CAS renders sporting decisions in a demanding time frame,” the statement read. “CAS cannot reopen a closed procedure without the agreement of all Parties. Following the [Swiss Supreme Court’s] decision, CAS can now ensure a thorough judicial review of the new evidence that has since been made available.”

Maurice M. Suh, one of the attorneys representing Chiles, issued a statement Thursday praising the decision.

“We are delighted that the Swiss Federal Supreme Court has righted a wrong and given Jordan the chance she deserves to reclaim her bronze medal,” Suh said. “… We appreciate that Jordan will receive a full and fair opportunity to defend her bronze medal. She is ready to fight vigorously, and we look forward to helping her achieve that result.”

Court gives Israeli government until March to justify ban on foreign media from Gaza

Israel’s Supreme Court has postponed a decision on whether to allow foreign journalists independent access to Gaza, in the latest delay of a legal battle that has stretched over a year.

The court granted the government until March 31 to respond to the petition filed by the Foreign Press Association, despite state attorneys failing to provide detailed justifications beyond citing security risks.

The decision extends a policy that has barred foreign correspondents from entering Gaza to report on conditions there, unless reporters are prepared to embed with the Israeli army.

At the hearing on Wednesday, justices appeared frustrated with the government’s explanations for maintaining the blanket ban on independent press access, which has remained in place since Israel launched its genocidal war against the Palestinian people of Gaza following the Hamas-led attack on October 7, 2023.

A ceasefire took effect in October 2025, though Israel has continued carrying out attacks, which have killed more than 400 people.

Justice Ruth Ronen rejected the state’s arguments, insisting that “it is not enough to cite ‘security risks’ without providing details” and noting there had been “a very significant change on the ground” since the ceasefire.

The FPA’s legal team was barred from attending or accessing the material presented to the judges.

The FPA, which represents 370 journalists from 130 media outlets, said it was “deeply disappointed that the Israeli Supreme Court has once again postponed ruling on our petition for free, independent press access to Gaza.”

“All the more concerning is that the court appears to have been swayed by the state’s classified security arguments,” the FPA added, calling the closed-door process one that “offers no opportunity for us to rebut these arguments and clears the way for the continued arbitrary and open-ended closure of Gaza to foreign journalists.”

This marks the ninth extension granted to the government since the petition was filed in September 2024.

Just days earlier, on January 25, Israel extended its shutdown of Al Jazeera’s operations for another 90 days, citing national security threats the network denies.

US plan for Gaza demilitarisation

The postponement comes as mediators continue to press for progress in the US-backed plan to end Israel’s war on Gaza.

At the UN Security Council, the United States said it had unveiled plans for an “internationally funded buyback” programme to disarm Hamas as part of Gaza’s demilitarisation, which is a key element in the second phase of the US-backed plan.

US Ambassador to the UN Mike Waltz told the Security Council on Wednesday that “international, independent monitors will supervise a process of demilitarisation of Gaza to include placing weapons permanently beyond use through an agreed process of decommissioning”, supported by the buyback scheme.

Hamas still controls just under half of the territory in Gaza beyond the Yellow Line, where Israeli forces remain present.

The second phase of the US plan will also require the Israeli army to withdraw, though Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said demilitarisation would have to come before any further progress on the ceasefire.

Two Hamas officials told the Reuters news agency this ‌week that neither the United States nor the mediators presented the Palestinian group with any detailed or concrete disarmament proposal.

Jan. 26 (UPI) — With one week to go before presidential elections scheduled for Sunday, Feb. 1, Costa Rica closed its campaign season amid a polarized political climate and with the ruling party leading most opinion polls.

In recent weeks, multiple surveys have shown Laura Fernández Delgado, candidate of the ruling Partido Pueblo Soberano, holding first place with support levels close to 40%. That figure would be enough for the former cabinet minister to secure a first-round victory.

However, polls also point to high voter indecision, estimated at around 45%, in a context marked by political fragmentation and an unusually large field of candidates, local newspaper El Observador reported.

A recent survey by the Centro de Investigación y Estudios Políticos (CIEP) of the Universidad de Costa Rica places Fernández at 30% support, still well ahead of the remaining 19 candidates competing for the presidency.

Second place is held by Álvaro Ramos of the Partido Liberación Nacional, who polls below 8%. Most other candidates register less than 2.3% support.

Fernández, 39, has campaigned on a continuity platform, seeking to capitalize on the popularity of President Rodrigo Chaves, who is expected to leave office with approval ratings near 60%. His support has been driven in part by a confrontational style and rhetoric against traditional politics and established elites.

Chaves, who is constitutionally barred from seeking re-election, has governed amid persistent political tension and frequent institutional clashes. His administration has been characterized by sharp rhetoric, public disputes with other branches of government and a governing style that emphasizes direct communication and political confrontation.

The elections follow a dispute with the Tribunal Supremo Electoral, which in October 2025 asked the Legislative Assembly to lift the president’s immunity to investigate alleged violations of electoral rules, including his participation in campaign activities.

Public security has emerged as one of the dominant themes throughout the campaign, reflecting growing concern among voters over rising violent crime and the expanding influence of organized crime in several regions of the country, according to daily La Nación.

During debates organized by media outlets and universities, candidates broadly agreed that addressing insecurity requires more than law enforcement alone. Proposals have emphasized criminal intelligence, increased police presence, improved coordination among state institutions and the recovery of territories affected by organized crime.

According to CIEP, two out of three Costa Ricans believe the country’s security situation is worse than a year ago. Long viewed as one of Central America’s safest nations, Costa Rica is facing an unprecedented security crisis.

Organized crime, fueled largely by drug trafficking, has expanded its presence in neighborhoods in southern San Jose, as well as in the provinces of Limón and Puntarenas. In 2024, Costa Rica recorded a homicide rate of 16.6 per 100,000 inhabitants, ranking eighth highest in Latin America, surpassing Guatemala and approaching levels reported in Mexico.