sue

ORLANDO, Fla. — College Republicans have sued the University of Florida’s president on free speech grounds over the school’s decision to deactivate its chapter after being notified that at least one member engaged in an antisemitic act.

The University of Florida College Republicans filed the lawsuit Monday in federal court against interim president Donald Landry, asking a judge to stop the enforcement of the school’s decision and to restore access to facilities on the Gainesville campus.

“The University of Florida punitively deactivated and shut down the UFCR, in response to alleged viewpoints expressed by a member of UFCR, and in an effort to silence the club and chill its future speech,” the group said in its lawsuit.

UF spokeswoman Cynthia Roldan Hernandez said in an email that the university doesn’t comment on pending litigation.

Officials at the University of Florida said over the weekend that they had been informed by the Florida Federation of College Republicans that the federation had disbanded the Gainesville campus’ chapter after determining that some members had “engaged in a pattern of conduct that violated its rules and values, including a recent antisemitic gesture.”

When the Florida Federation of College Republicans is ready, the university will assist with reactivating the campus chapter under new student leadership, UF officials said in a statement.

The deactivation wasn’t based on any university policy or rule, and it was only based on a member’s expression of a viewpoint “which was alleged to be antisemitic,” the lawsuit said.

The university also didn’t provide the College Republicans with adequate notice and didn’t give the chapter an opportunity to explain its side of the story, according to the lawsuit.

The deactivation effort at the University of Florida campus marks the second time this month that a public university in Florida has taken action against a Republican group accused of being involved in racist or antisemitic behavior.

Earlier this month, Florida International University in Miami launched an investigation into a group chat started by an official with the Miami-Dade chapter of the Republican Party that included violently racist slurs, antisemitic comments and misogynistic language. The chat involved students and several top conservative leaders at Florida International University.

Last fall, New York’s Republican State Committee suspended a Young Republican organization following the release of a group chat that included jokes about rape and flippant commentary on gas chambers.

Schneider writes for the Associated Press.

California and a coalition of other states sued the Trump administration Monday over its efforts to roll back fair housing rules that bar certain types of discrimination by landlords, including against LGBTQ+ people.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development rule change threatening funding for states that offer housing protections for LGBTQ+ and other marginalized individuals who are not explicitly covered by federal law is illegal, undermines state efforts to combat discrimination and would push vulnerable people onto the streets.

“In effect, the Trump administration is attempting to roll back civil rights enforcement in housing at the federal level, and pressure states to weaken their own protections as well,” Bonta said during a news conference Monday. “That’s not just bad policy, it’s unlawful.”

Representatives from HUD and the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The federal Fair Housing Act explicitly bans discrimination based on seven traits: race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status and disability. Under rules set forth during the Obama administration, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has for years interpreted the law as banning discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Many states, including California, also have adopted laws explicitly banning discrimination against LGBTQ+ people and other marginalized groups not mentioned in the federal law, with California also banning discrimination based on marital status, ancestry, source of income and veteran or military status.

In September, HUD issued new guidance threatening to decertify state housing agencies — stripping their federal funding and ability to investigate discrimination claims — if they provide anti-discrimination protections other than those spelled out in the Fair Housing Act. The guidance also barred state agencies from using federal funds to “promote gender ideology,” “fund or promote elective abortions” or promote illegal immigration, according to the lawsuit.

The guidance followed that of HUD Secretary Scott Turner, a former NFL player and Trump loyalist, who announced last year that HUD would no longer adhere to a 2016 Obama-era rule protecting transgender people from housing discrimination, which Turner said “tied housing programs, shelters and other facilities funded by HUD to far-left gender ideology.”

“We, at this agency, are carrying out the mission laid out by President Trump on January 20th [2025] when he signed an executive order to restore biological truth to the federal government,” Turner said in a statement, referring to Trump’s order calling on federal agencies across the government to rescind protections for transgender Americans.

“This means recognizing there are only two sexes: male and female,” Turner said. “It means getting government out of the way of what the Lord established from the beginning when he created man in His own image.”

Among other things, the administration said rules barring discrimination against transgender people allowed “biological men to enter shelters intended for women impacted by trauma, domestic abuse and violence.”

LGBTQ+ advocacy groups condemned the move, noting that transgender Americans face heightened discrimination in a slate of areas — including housing — and need protections. They also contended that HUD’s new policies violate a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court decision barring employment discrimination based on gender or gender identity.

Bonta said the Fair Housing Act “set a floor, not a ceiling, for protections against discrimination,” which means that states “have the authority to go further and protect more people,” as California has endeavored to do.

He said HUD has supported the state’s anti-discrimination work for decades through the Fair Housing Assistance Program, which provides funding to state and local agencies to investigate and enforce laws against housing discrimination. HUD’s new guidance “threatens to undermine that system” by demanding an end to state protections not just for LGBTQ+ people, but for military veterans, immigrants as well as women receiving abortions and other reproductive healthcare, he said.

“Families across California are already struggling to find homes they can afford, and the last thing they need is for the federal government to make it harder,” Bonta said. “At its core, this lawsuit is about protecting a fundamental civil right: the right to rent, buy, or live in housing without discrimination.”

Bonta said California interprets the Fair Housing Act’s ban on sex discrimination as protecting LGBTQ+ people, but the Trump administration doesn’t agree — making the state’s more explicit protections important.

He said about $3 million in federal funding is currently at stake for California, with millions more at stake in other states.

Illinois Atty. Gen. Kwame Raoul, who is helping lead the lawsuit and spoke alongside Bonta Monday, said states with robust antidiscrimination laws “will not go backwards and we will not give in to threats” from the Trump administration.

“These actions are part of a broader, ongoing pattern by this administration to subvert the legal protections our country has put in place to combat discrimination, and to tear down the hard fought progress we have made for civil rights,” Raoul said. “It is also just the latest page in the president’s illegal playbook to use funding and programs created by Congress to try to strong arm states into adopting Trump’s preferred policies.”

The states allege that HUD’s targeting of state antidiscrimination policies comes after it downsized its own workforce and significantly reduced its ability to investigate housing discrimination complaints and enforce fair housing laws. They say the new guidance violates multiple federal laws, including laws that govern federal spending and rule changes, and are asking the federal court to immediately invalidate the guidance as unlawful.

Bonta and Raoul are joined in the lawsuit by the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

Sue and Noel Radford, best known for starring on 22 Kids & Counting, have made it to the Canary Islands after they faced backlash for complaining that their Dubai holiday had originally been cancelled

Sue and Noel Radford have arrived in a beach resort amid backlash. The 22 Kids & Counting star, 50, and her husband managed to get to the Canary Islands, after previously complaining that their Dubai holiday had been cancelled.

Last week, war broke out in the Middle East as Israel and the USA struck Israel, which killed its leader, Ali Khamenei. Iran then retaliated by striking military bases and various places across the Middle East including Tehran, Beirut and the UAE, including missile strikes and drones in Dubai. The strikes have lead to mass flight cancellations as the Foreign Office advised against all but essential travel to the UAE.

In an update posted onto her Instagram, Sue revealed that she had managed to jet off after all, as she posted what looked like a view from her balcony in a luxury resort.

READ MORE: Sue Radford jokes husband Noel ‘will kill me’ over giant surprise she took homeREAD MORE: Sue Radford under fire as she complains about Dubai holiday being cancelled

She captioned the post: “”The sun is shining we are all checked in and looking forward to a few days in the sun loving the Canary Islands we’ve not been for years.”

Sue was due to go to Dubai but has understandably cancelled her trip given what is going on. However, she has left her fans fuming by saying she was having a “nightmare” with the travel company they used as she tries to get a refund.

Taking to Instagram, she wrote: “As you know Chris and Aimee both got us weekends away for Christmas but as we couldn’t do the dates we swapped it to Dubai we were going to be flying tonight. Anyway hands up who’s been having a nightmare with travelup1 because I think there’s going to be lots of you.

“Phone lines dead so guessing they have turned them off and no response from them to emails i have commented on their insta page but all of our comments have been deleted and there been lots from very unhappy customers.

“I know we are safe in this country but even if you wanted to rebook you can’t because they aren’t dealing with it, so anyone who’s booked with this company think twice PLEASE.”

Editing her post later on, Sue said the company had been in touch. She added: “Travelup have messaged on insta so for others in the same situation it might be worth doing the same.

“The point of this post is that we do not want to rebook I would imagine lots wouldn’t but this company switching phones off is not the way to go about it so people can’t contact them at all and deleting comments is bad.”

Ensure our latest headlines always appear at the top of your Google Search by making us a Preferred Source. Click here to activate or add us as your Preferred Source in your Google search settings.

Despite her insisting it was all resolved now, angry fans took to social media to fume over her original post. One branded it “tone deaf”, writing: “This is tone deaf. People are dying. Others are hiding in hotel rooms/basements. And the rest are stranded with many fearing for their lives. Your holiday dues not matter right now.

“Your refund/swap is not the priority. You should have travel insurance and be Atol/Abta protected – you’ll get your money. For now just sit tight and be thankful you’re not one of the people I just listed above.”

Another added: “Love you guys and this family so much, watch their shows every week and you’re all so lovely…. But please can we be kind to companies who are dealing with a war. This isn’t a day to day situation. I know we all want to rebook flights, I want to get some sun !! and get on our holidays, but why don’t we let the dust settle and give people a time to breathe and take stock of what’s actually going on, especially since the situation is escalating by the day.”

“I wouldn’t normally comment but I’m not being funny but face palming and talking about a weekend away when thousands of people are stuck in the Middle East either as ex pats or holiday makers/ on cruises etc. I think the travel agents have a little bit on their plates currently with a war occurring,” a third wrote.

“I like this family… but maybe think of those who are actually stuck over there instead of hounding travel companies. They will have a ridiculous amount to deal with, not just your holiday which im sure in due course will be sorted out for you,” a fourth penned.

Like this s tory? F or more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .

HAMYANG, South Korea, Feb. 23 (UPI) — As harvest season approached last November, farmer Ma Yong-un walked through his apple orchard in southern South Korea with a growing sense of dread.

The Fuji apples hanging from the trees were pale, lacking the deep red color that signals sweetness and commands a good price. To make matters worse, many were splitting open as they ripened.

An unusually rainy fall had blocked the sunlight needed for proper coloring, following one of the hottest summers on record.

“I had never seen this kind of cracking before,” Ma, 55, told UPI on his farm in Hamyang, a rural county in South Gyeongsang Province. “I was so stressed. I was worried about my family’s survival.”

A late dry spell before the harvest helped salvage some color, but another year of punishing weather had taken its toll. Ma estimated that half his apples were not of good quality.

Across South Korea, similar stories have become increasingly common. Farmers are facing mounting losses from heat waves, heavy rainfall, droughts and shifting growing seasons — impacts scientists widely link to climate change.

Now, their experiences are moving from fields and paddies into a courtroom.

Ma is one of five plaintiffs in a civil lawsuit filed against state-owned utility Korea Electric Power Corporation, or KEPCO, and five of its power-generation subsidiaries. The suit seeks financial compensation for climate-related agricultural damages and asks whether a major corporate emitter can be held legally responsible for the downstream effects of climate change.

The case is the first of its kind in South Korea, according to Yeny Kim, an attorney with the Seoul-based nonprofit Solutions for Our Climate, which is representing the plaintiffs.

“Agriculture is an industry that is absolutely dependent on climate conditions,” Kim told UPI. “As the climate changes, we’re reaching a point where certain crops can no longer be grown. That leads to damages to farmland, reduced yields and increased costs just to grow the same amount of crops.”

Filed in August, the lawsuit argues that KEPCO’s greenhouse gas emissions materially contributed to climate change and, in turn, to the plaintiffs’ economic losses.

Quantifying climate damage

The case is based on an analysis estimating $72.9 billion in climate-related economic damages linked to KEPCO’s emissions between 2011 and 2023. During that period, KEPCO and its subsidiaries accounted for roughly 27% of South Korea’s total greenhouse gas emissions, making the utility the single largest corporate emitter in the country.

Globally, the companies’ emissions represented about 0.39% of cumulative worldwide emissions over the same timeframe — a figure the plaintiffs argue is sufficient to establish measurable responsibility for climate-driven harm.

“In a court of law, quantifiable harm means legal liability,” Kim said.

The lawsuit draws on the “polluter pays” principle, which holds that those responsible for pollution should bear the costs of the damage it causes. While widely used in environmental law, applying it to climate change remains largely untested in Korean courts.

Each plaintiff is seeking an initial 5 million won — about $3,400 — in damages, an amount that could be adjusted as the case proceeds. They are also requesting an additional 2,035 won, roughly $1.40, as symbolic compensation for the emotional and psychological toll they say climate change has imposed on their lives.

Hwang Seong-yeol, a rice farmer and fellow plaintiff, said anxiety and a sense of helplessness now shadow every growing season.

“We just look at the sky and wonder what the weather is going to be like,” Hwang said at a press briefing in Seoul in November. “Being stressed from physical labor is something we can endure. But the stress caused by climate change is completely unbearable.”

The suit’s first hearing took place at Gwangju District Court last month. Court records show the defendants have submitted multiple written responses contesting the claims. The next hearing is scheduled for April 23.

KEPCO did not respond to a request for comment. The company has pledged to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, in line with South Korean government policy.

An economy at risk

South Korea has lagged other developed countries in transitioning away from fossil fuels. Government data show just 10.7% of the country’s electricity came from renewable sources in 2024, well below the global average of roughly 32%.

The country is also particularly exposed to climate disruptions abroad. South Korea imports the vast majority of its food — its calorie self-sufficiency rate stood at just 32.5% in 2023, roughly half the level recorded in 1990, according to the Korea Rural Economic Institute. The broader grain self-sufficiency rate, including animal feed, has fallen to 22.2%, among the lowest of any OECD country.

Nam Jae-Chol, a professor at Seoul National University and former administrator of the Korea Meteorological Administration, told UPI that dependence leaves the country vulnerable when climate shocks hit major exporters.

“When exporting countries begin to limit shipments because of climate impacts, that’s when the problem becomes visible,” Nam said. “If agricultural imports suddenly decline because of climate change, prices will skyrocket. In extreme cases, exports could even stop.”

“In 10 or 20 years, we’re going to face a serious crisis due to climate change,” Nam added. “It’s inevitable.”

In South Korea, warming temperatures have already pushed traditional crop-growing zones northward, forcing farmers to adapt — changing what they grow, how they manage water and how they run their operations, Nam said.

Ma said he first felt the full weight of climate change in 2018, when severe cold and frost tore through his orchard, a moment that convinced him the changes were accelerating.

Since then, he has cut his use of chemical fertilizers and tried more eco-friendly practices to improve soil health. He has also begun to consider whether he may eventually need to change crops or even move his orchard entirely — decisions that carry steep costs and uncertainty.

“The compensation is 5 million won, but the damages I suffered this fall alone were ten times more than that,” Ma said. “So the amount itself doesn’t really mean much.”

What he hopes, he said, is that the lawsuit makes those struggles harder to ignore.

“Climate change is already having a huge impact on our agriculture, and people need to see that,” Ma said. “KEPCO cannot continue operating this way, and Korea needs to change its energy policy toward something more sustainable.”

A coalition of civil rights organizations filed the lawsuit against the Trump administration in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on Sunday, seeking to prevent it from misusing voter information seized from the Fulton County, Ga., elections office last month. Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo

Feb. 16 (UPI) — Several civil rights groups are suing the Trump administration to prohibit it from misusing voter information that it seized from Fulton County, Ga., last month.

The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Georgia Coalition for the People’s Agenda, the NAACP and Atlanta and Georgia State Conference branches of the NAACP filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on Sunday.

They seek to block the Trump administration from using the voting records to purge voters from the rolls, improperly disclose information, dox or intimidate voters.

“We have very serious concerns about what the Trump administration could do with the voting records of thousands of people from Fulton County,” Robert Weiner, director of the voting rights project at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said in a statement.

“When people registered to vote, they did not sign up for the release of their private information and social security numbers, especially not to politicians and their loyalists bent on advancing debunked conspiracy theories.”

The FBI raided the Fulton County elections office in Union City, Ga., on Jan. 28, and commandeered sensitive voter information from the 2020 general election. The lawsuit alleges that this included personal data and documents that could identify who voted for a particular candidate.

About 700 boxes of ballots were taken from the elections office as well as other materials related to the election.

FBI agents executed a warrant at the direction of the White House, a warrant affidavit revealed.

President Donald Trump has maintained that the 2020 presidential election was “stolen” and he was the true winner, despite numerous court decisions striking down his claims.

Trump’s claims have continued since his return to the White House, as well as broader claims of election fraud. He has called for elections to be “nationalized” in recent weeks, saying Republicans should “take over” elections in “at least maybe 15 places.”