Sue

California and a coalition of other liberal-led states sued the Trump administration Tuesday over a provision in the “Big Beautiful Bill” that bars Planned Parenthood and other large nonprofit abortion providers from receiving Medicaid funding for a host of unrelated healthcare services.

The measure has threatened clinics across the country that rely on federal funding to operate. California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, who is helping to lead the litigation, called it a “cruel, backdoor abortion ban” that violates the law in multiple ways.

The states’ challenge comes one day after Planned Parenthood won a major victory in its own lawsuit over the measure in Boston, where a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the ban from taking effect against Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide.

Federal law already prohibits the use of federal Medicaid funding to pay for abortions, but the new “defund provision” in the bill passed by congressional Republicans earlier this month goes further. It also bars nonprofit abortion providers that generated $800,000 or more in annual Medicaid revenue in 2023 from receiving any such funding for the next year — including for services unrelated to abortion, such as annual checkups, cancer screenings, birth control and testing for sexually transmitted infections.

Attorneys for the U.S. Department of Justice have argued that the measure “stops federal subsidies for Big Abortion,” that Congress under the constitution is “free to decline to provide taxpayer funds to entities that provide abortions,” and that Planned Parenthood’s position should not hold sway over that of Congress.

In announcing the states’ lawsuit Monday, Bonta’s office echoed Planned Parenthood officials in asserting that the provision specifically and illegally targets Planned Parenthood and its affiliate clinics — calling it “a direct attack on the healthcare access of millions of low-income Americans, disproportionally affecting women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and communities of color.”

Bonta’s office said the measure threatened $300 million in federal funding for clinics in California, where Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider, and “jeopardized the stability” of Planned Parenthood’s 114 clinics across the state, which serve about 700,000 patients annually — many of whom use Medi-Cal, the state’s version of Medicaid.

During a virtual news conference Monday, Bonta noted that federal funds already don’t cover abortions. He said the new provision was “punishment for Planned Parenthood’s constitutionally protected advocacy for abortion” and “a direct attack on access to essential healthcare for millions who rely on Medicaid.”

“The Trump administration and Congress are actually gutting essential lifesaving care, like cancer screenings and STI testing, simply because Planned Parenthood has spoken out in support of reproductive rights,” Bonta said. “The hypocrisy is really hard to ignore. A party that claims to be defenders of free speech only seem to care about it when it aligns with their own agenda.”

Bonta added: “Rest assured, California will continue to lead as a reproductive freedom state, and will continue to defend healthcare as a human right.”

In their lawsuit, the states argue that the measure is unlawfully ambiguous and violates the spending powers of Congress by singling out Planned Parenthood for negative treatment, and that it will harm people’s health and increase the cost of Medicaid programs for states by more than $50 million over the next decade.

In its lawsuit, Planned Parenthood also argued that the measure intentionally singled it and its affiliates out for punishment, in violation of their constitutional rights, including free speech.

In granting Planned Parenthood’s request for a preliminary injunction, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani wrote Monday that she was “not enjoining the federal government from regulating abortion and is not directing the federal government to fund elective abortions or any healthcare service not otherwise eligible for Medicaid coverage.”

Talwani, an Obama appointee, wrote that she also was not requiring the federal government “to spend money not already appropriated for Medicaid or any other funds.”

Instead, Talwani wrote, her order blocks the Trump administration from “targeting a specific group of entities — Planned Parenthood Federation members — for exclusion from reimbursements under the Medicaid program,” as they were likely to prove that “such targeted exclusion violates the United States Constitution.”

In a statement to The Times on Tuesday, White House spokesman Harrison Fields said the “Big, Beautiful Bill” was “legally passed by both chambers of the Legislative Branch and signed into law by the Chief Executive,” and Talwani’s order granting the injunction was “not only absurd but illogical and incorrect.”

“It is orders like these that underscore the audacity of the lower courts as well as the chaos within the judicial branch. We look forward to ultimate victory on the issue,” Fields said.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for additional comment on the states’ lawsuit.

Jodi Hicks, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, joined Bonta during his news conference. She welcomed the states’ lawsuit, saying “an attack this severe requires a multi-pronged response with both short and long term strategies.”

Hicks said it’s particularly important that California is helping to fight back, given the huge stakes for the state.

“California is the most impacted state across the country because of the volume of patients that we have, but also because of the amount of Medicaid that our state takes,” she said. “It speaks to our values. And this defund provision is certainly [an] attack on values — most heavily on California.”

Bonta is leading the lawsuit along with the attorneys general of Connecticut and New York. Joining them are Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and the attorneys general of Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia.

Bonta noted the lawsuit is the 36th his office has filed against the Trump administration in the last 27 weeks.

California and a coalition of other liberal-led states filed a federal lawsuit Monday challenging the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s recent demand that they turn over the personal information of millions of people receiving federal food assistance through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

USDA Secretary Brooke L. Rollins informed states earlier this month that they would have to transmit the data to the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service to comply with an executive order by President Trump. That order demanded that Trump’s agency appointees receive “full and prompt access” to all data associated with federal programs, so that they might identify and eliminate “waste, fraud, and abuse.”

Last week, USDA officials informed state SNAP directors that the deadline for submitting the data is Wednesday and that failure to comply “may trigger noncompliance procedures” — including the withholding of funds.

In announcing the states’ lawsuit Monday, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said the “unprecedented” demand “violates all kinds of state and federal privacy laws” and “further breaks the trust between the federal government and the people it serves.”

Bonta’s office noted that states have administered the equivalent of SNAP benefits — formerly known as food stamps — for 60 years. It said that California alone receives “roughly $1 billion a year” to administer the program in the state and that “any delay in that funding could be catastrophic for the state and its residents who rely on SNAP to put food on the table.”

The USDA has demanded data for all current and former SNAP recipients since the start of 2020, including “all household group members names, dates of birth, social security numbers, residential and mailing addresses,” as well as “transactional records from each household” that show the dollar amounts they spent and where. It said it may also collect information about people’s income.

Meanwhile, a Privacy Impact Assessment published by the agency showed that it also is collecting data on people’s education, employment, immigration status and citizenship.

The USDA and other Trump administration officials have said the initiative will save taxpayers money by eliminating “information silos” that allow inefficiencies and fraud to fester in federal programs.

“It is imperative that USDA eliminates bureaucratic duplication and inefficiency and enhances the government’s ability not only to have point-in-time information but also to detect overpayments and fraud,” Rollins wrote in a July 9 letter to the states.

The Trump administration, which is pursuing what Trump has called the biggest mass deportation of undocumented immigrants in the nation’s history, has requested sensitive data from other federal programs and services — including Medicaid and the IRS — to share with immigration officials.

That has raised alarm among Democrats, who have said that tying such services to immigration enforcement will put people’s health at risk and decrease tax revenue. California sued the Trump administration earlier this month for sharing Medicaid data with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

On Monday, Bonta raised similar alarms about the administration’s demand for SNAP data, questioning what it will do with the information and how families that rely on such assistance will react. His office said it appeared to be “the next step” in the administration’s anti-immigrant campaign.

“President Trump continues to weaponize private and sensitive personal information — not to root out fraud, but to create a culture of fear where people are unwilling to apply for essential services,” Bonta said. “We’re talking about kids not getting school lunch; fire victims not accessing emergency services; and other devastating, and deadly, consequences.”

Bonta said the USDA demand for SNAP benefits data is illegal under established law, and that California “will not comply” while it takes the administration to court.

“The president doesn’t get to change the rules in the middle of the game, no matter how much he may want to,” Bonta said. “While he may be comfortable breaking promises to the American people, California is not.”

The new data collection does not follow established processes for the federal government to audit state data without collecting it wholesale. During a recently concluded public comment period, Bonta and other liberal attorneys general submitted a comment arguing that the data demand violates the Privacy Act.

“USDA should rethink this flawed and unlawful proposal and instead work with the States to improve program efficiency and integrity through the robust processes already in place,” they wrote.

Last week, California and other states sued the Trump administration over new rules barring undocumented immigrants from accessing more than a dozen other federally funded benefit programs, including Head Start, short-term and emergency shelters, soup kitchens and food banks, healthcare services and adult education programs.

The states did not include USDA in that lawsuit despite its issuing a similar notice, writing that “many USDA programs are subject to an independent statutory requirement to provide certain benefits programs to everyone regardless of citizenship,” which the department’s notice said would continue to apply.

Bonta announced Monday’s lawsuit along with New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James. Joining them in the lawsuit were Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear and the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington and Wisconsin, as well as the state of Kentucky.

Coronation Street’s Audrey Roberts, played by Sue Nicholls, recently celebrated a birthday on the soap and fans have been left shocked after realising the actress’ real age

Coronation Street viewers have been left stunned after discovering the actual age of Sue Nicholls, who portrays beloved character Audrey Roberts.

Audrey first appeared on the cobbles back in 1979 as Gail Platt’s mum (Helen Worth), and has since become an absolute favourite amongst fans, featuring in numerous major storylines.

Throughout the decades, audiences have experienced both heartache and happiness alongside Audrey, witnessing her wedding to Alf Roberts (Bryan Mosley) in 1985 and mourning his devastating passing in 1999.

READ MORE: Coronation Street’s Antony Cotton pays devastating tribute to colleague as they die age 38

READ MORE: Coronation Street star bows out in sad scenes as fans call for U-turn

Fans have also watched Audrey evolve into a great-grandmother to characters such as Bethany Platt (Lucy Fallon), whilst seeing her collaborate with grandson David Platt (Jack P Shepherd) at Audrey’s hair salon.

More recently, she was left heartbroken when daughter Gail departed the cobbles last year following 25 years on the street, embarking on a fresh chapter in France with husband Jesse Chadwick (John Thompson), reports Leicestershire Live.

During this week’s episodes, Audrey marked her 85th birthday with a special meal at The Bistro, surrounded by her family including grandchildren Sarah (Tina O’Brien) and David.

Yet fans have been absolutely flabbergasted upon learning actress Sue’s true age.

On a Corrie Facebook fan page, discussing character Audrey’s recent birthday festivities, one person posted: “Aw, happy 85th birthday Audrey!”.

Another fan responded: “She looks good for her age, Sue who plays her is 81 in real life.” A third viewer exclaimed: “No way!”. Meanwhile, a fourth admiring fan declared: “She’s barely aged.”

Before her time on Corrie, Sue had a hidden singing career and landed her first soap role in the legendary Crossroads.

In 1968, she released a track titled ‘Where Will You Be?’, which climbed to number 17 in the UK Music Charts, and it’s said that she also performed in a cabaret club in Vienna during her younger years.

She became a familiar face on our telly, featuring in ‘The Rise and Fall of Reginald Perrin’ alongside Leonard Rossiter from 1976-1979, and as Nadia Popov in ‘Rentaghost’ from 1981-1984.

Coronation Street airs Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 8pm on ITV1 and ITVX

PARIS — A lawyer for France ‘s first couple said they’ll be seeking “substantial” damages from U.S. conservative influencer Candace Owens if she persists with claims that President Emmanuel Macron ‘s wife, Brigitte, is a man.

The lawyer, Tom Clare, said in an interview with CNN that a defamation suit filed Wednesday for the Macrons in a Delaware court was “really a last resort” after a fruitless yearlong effort to engage with Owens and requests that she “do the right thing: tell the truth, stop spreading these lies.”

“Each time we’ve done that, she mocked the Macrons, she mocked our efforts to set the record straight,” Clare said. “Enough is enough, it was time to hold her accountable.”

The Macrons have been married since 2007, and Emmanuel Macron has been France’s president since 2017.

In a YouTube video, Owens called the suit an “obvious and desperate public relations strategy,” and said the first lady is “a very goofy man.”

Owens is a right-leaning political commentator whose YouTube channel has about 4.5 million subscribers. In 2024, she was denied a visa from New Zealand and Australia, citing remarks in which she denied Nazi medical experimentation on Jews in concentration camps during World War II.

The 219-page complaint against Owens lays out “extensive evidence” that Brigitte Macron “was born a woman, she’s always been a woman,” the couple’s attorney said.

“We’ll put forward our damage claim at trial, but if she continues to double down between now and the time of trial, it will be a substantial award,” he said.

In Paris, the presidential office had no immediate comment.

In France, too, the presidential couple has for years been dogged by conspiracy theories that Brigitte was born as a man named Jean-Michel Trogneux, who supposedly then took the name Brigitte as a transgender woman. Jean-Michel Trogneux is, in fact, Brigitte’s brother.

Last September, Brigitte and Jean-Michel Trogneux won a defamation suit against two women who were sentenced by a Paris court to fines and damages for spreading the claims about the first lady online. A Paris appeals court overturned the ruling earlier this month. Brigitte and her brother have since turned to France’s highest court to appeal that decision, according to French media.

The Macrons first met at the high school where he was a student and she was a teacher. Brigitte Macron was then Brigitte Auzière, a married mother of three children.

Macron, 47, is serving his second and last term as president. The first lady celebrated her 72nd birthday in April.

Macron moved to Paris for his last year of high school, but promised to marry Brigitte. She later moved to the French capital to join him and divorced before they finally married.

Their relationship came under the spotlight in May when video images showed Brigitte pushing her husband away with both hands on his face before they disembarked from a plane on a tour of Southeast Asia.

Macron later dismissed the incident as play-fighting, telling reporters that “we are squabbling and, rather, joking with my wife,” and that it had been overblown into “a sort of geo-planetary catastrophe.”

“The Fantastic Four: First Steps” slots into summer blockbuster season like a square peg in a round popcorn bucket. Prestige TV director Matt Shakman (“WandaVision”) isn’t inclined to pretzel himself like the flexible Reed Richards to please all four quadrants of the multiplex. His staid superhero movie plays like classic sci-fi in which adults wearing sweater vests solemnly brainstorm how to resolve a crisis. Watching it, I felt as snug as being nestled in the backseat of my grandparents’ car at the drive-in.

This reboot of the Fantastic Four franchise — the third in two decades — is lightyears closer to 1951’s “The Day the Earth Stood Still” than it is to the frantic, over-cluttered superhero epics that have come to define modern entertainment. Set on Earth 828, an alternate universe that borrows our own Atomic Age decor, it doesn’t just look old, it moves old. The tone and pace are as sure-footed as globe-gobbling Galactus, this film’s heavy, purposefully marching into alt-world Manhattan. Even its tidy running time is from another epoch. Under two hours? Now that’s vintage chic.

“First Steps” picks up several years after four astronauts — Reed (Pedro Pascal), his wife, Sue (Vanessa Kirby), his brother-in-law Johnny (Joseph Quinn) and his best friend Ben (Ebon Moss-Bachrach) — get themselves blasted by cosmic rays that endow them with special powers. You may know the leads better as, respectively, Mr. Fantastic, the Invisible Woman, the Human Torch and the Thing. For mild comic relief, they also pal around with a robot named H.E.R.B.I.E., voiced by Matthew Wood.

Skipping their origin story keeps things tight while underlining the idea that these are settled-down grown-ups secure in their abilities to lengthen, disappear, ignite and clobber. Fans might argue they should be a bit more neurotic; screenplay structuralists will grumble they have no narrative arc. The mere mortals of Earth 828 respect the squad for their brains and their brawn — they’re celebrities in a genteel pre-paparazzi time — but these citizens are also prone to despair when they aren’t sure Pascal’s workaholic daddy will save them.

Lore has it Stan Lee was a married, middle-aged father aging out of writing comic books when his beloved spouse, Joan, elbowed him to develop characters who felt personal. The graying, slightly boring Reed was a loose-limbed version of himself: the ultimate wife guy with the ultimate wife.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

But Hollywood has aged-down Lee’s “quaint quartet,” as he called them, at its own peril. Make the Fantastic Four cool (as the movies have repeatedly tried and failed to do) and they come across as desperately lame. This time, Shakman and the script’s four-person writing team of Josh Friedman, Eric Pearson, Jeff Kaplan and Ian Springer valorize their lameness and restore their dignity. Pascal’s Mr. Fantastic is so buttoned-down that he tucks his tie into his dress shirt.

The scenario is that Sue is readying to give birth to the Richards’ first child just as the herald Shalla-Bal (Julia Garner), a.k.a. the Silver Surfer, barrels into the atmosphere to politely inform humanity that her boss Galactus (voiced by Ralph Ineson) has RSVP-ed yes to her invitation that he devour their planet. In a biologically credible touch, the animators have added tarnish to her cleavage: “I doubt she was naked,” Reed says evenly. “It was probably a stellar polymer.”

Typically, this threat would trigger a madcap fetch-this-gizmo caper (as it did in the original comic). Shakman’s version doesn’t waste its energy or our time on that. Rather, this a lean showdown between self-control and gluttony, between our modest heroes and a greedy titan. It’s at the Venn diagram of a Saturday morning cartoon and a moralistic Greek myth.

The film is all sleek lines, from its themes to its architecture to its images. The visuals by the cinematographer Jess Hall are crisp and impactful: a translucent hand snatching at a womb, a character falling into the pull of a yawning black hole, a torso stretched like chewing gum, a rocket launch that can’t blast off until we get a close-up of everyone buckling their seatbelts. Even in space, the CG isn’t razzle-dazzle busy. Meanwhile, Michael Giacchino’s score soars between bleats of triumph and barbershop-chorus charm, a combination that can sound like an automobile show unveiling the first convertible with tail fins.

There is little brawling and less snark. No one comes off like an aspiring stand-up comic. These characters barely raise their voices and often use their abilities on the mundane: Kirby’s Sue vanishes to avoid awkward conversations, Moss-Bachrach’s Ben, in a nod to his breakout role as the maître d’ on “The Bear,” uses his mighty fists to mash garlic. Johnny, the youngest and most literally hotheaded of the group, is apt to light himself on fire when he can’t be bothered to find a flashlight. He delivers the meanest quip in a respectful movie when he tells Reed, “I take back every single bad thing I’ve been saying about you … to myself, in private.”

Yes, my audience giggled dutifully at the jiggling Jell-O salads and drooled over the groovy conversation pits in the Richards’ living room, the only super lair I’d ever live in. The color palette emphasizes retro shades of blue, green and gold; even the extras have coordinated their outfits to the trim on the Fantasticar. Delightfully, when Moss-Bachrach’s brawny rock monster strolls to the deli to buy black-and-white cookies, he’s wearing a gargantuan pair of penny loafers.

If you want to feel old, the generation of middle schoolers who saw 2008’s “Iron Man” on opening weekend are now beginning to raise their own children. Thirty-seven films later, the Marvel Cinematic Universe has gotten so insecure about its own mission that it’s pitching movies at every maturity level. The recent “Thunderbolts*” is for surly teenagers, “Deadpool & Wolverine” is the drunk, divorced uncle at a BBQ, and “First Steps” extends a sympathetic hand to young families who identify with Reed’s frustration that he can’t childproof the entire galaxy.

Here, for a mass audience, Kirby gets to reprise her underwatched Oscar-nominated turn in “Pieces of a Woman,” in which she extended out a 24-minute, single-take labor scene. This karaoke snippet is good (and even a little operatic when the pain makes her dematerialize). I was as impressed by the costumer Alexandra Byrne’s awareness that even super moms won’t immediately snap back into wearing tight spandex. (By contrast, when Jessica Alba played Sue in 2007’s “Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer,” the director notoriously asked her to be “prettier” when she cried.)

This reboot’s boldest stride toward progress is that it values emotionally credible performances. Otherwise, Pascal aside, you wouldn’t assemble this cast for any audience besides critics and dweebs (myself included) who keep a running list of their favorite not-quite-brand-name talents who are ready to break through to the next level of their career while yelling, “It’s clobbering time!”

Still, this isn’t anyone’s best role, and it’s a great movie only when compared to similarly budgeted dreck. Yet it’s a worthy exercise in creating something that doesn’t feel nostalgic for an era — it feels of an era. Even if the MCU’s take on slow cinema doesn’t sell tickets in our era, I admire the confidence of a movie that sets its own course instead of chasing the common wisdom that audiences want 2½ hours of chaos. Studio executives continuing to insist on that nonsense deserve Marvel’s first family to give them a disappointed talking-to, and send them to back their boardrooms without supper.

A new spin-off of the Channel 5 show 22 Kids and Counting is set to air this weekend, taking on a new life as Noel Radford begins a journey to find his birth mother

22 Kids and Counting star Sue Radford has opened up about her feelings towards her husband Noel, who is choosing to find his birth mother in a new special TV spin-off.

Both Noel and Sue Radford were adopted as babies and met later when they were children, having their first child together when Sue was just 14 years old and Noel was 18. As of 2021, the pair have had 22 children together and have starred in numerous TV programmes focussing on their huge family and their own difficult upbringings.

Throughout the years, Noel has been candid when speaking about his childhood experiences, having been adopted in 1971 at just 10 days old. Over the years, Noel has candidly spoken about being adopted and hopes to find his biological parents.

However, despite being adopted herself, Sue has no interest in finding her own biological parents, which has caused some divided opinion between the couple. In this next series, viewers who already feel very much a part of their family’s life can follow Noel along as he embarks on an emotional journey to track down the woman who gave birth to him all those years ago.

A teaser clip of the upcoming episodes unveils more about Noel’s feelings. He shared: “It really is a massive thing going looking for your birth mum after all this time. I think I’d like to meet her; yeah, I think I would.”

The now 54-year-old confessed that he felt it was his ‘duty’ to try and find his mother, adding that “They might be desperate to see us.” Although his wife doesn’t seem to share the same sentiment, as a woman who has given birth herself, she seems to hold less empathy for the parents that decided to give them away as babies.

Sue added: “My birth mum was in the same situation as I was in. But I chose to keep my baby, and my mum put me up for adoption. My birth mum didn’t want me, and that does affect you. It has caused a few disagreements between me and Noel. My mum and dad are my mum and dad, and that’s it.”

The brand new series airs on Channel 5 this Sunday night, July 20, with the first episode following the couple as they arrange to meet with an adoption specialist.

A synopsis of the episode states: “For more than three years, Noel Radford has been attempting to make contact with his birth mother but has always drawn a blank. This leads his wife, Sue, to hire an adoption specialist in one final attempt to help her husband fulfil his dream, but it comes with unexpected consequences.”

Since 2021, the Radford’s story has captured the hearts of the nation, and viewers are keen to continue to watch their large family embark on new endeavours. After making the announcement that the couple will be returning to our screens, fans were eager to see what the family of 24 have in store.

A fan commented on the announcement: “Great, can’t wait. I love your family, and it was very moving watching Noel tracing his birth mother. Me and my twin brother and I were adopted, and I can understand how he feels wanting to know.”

The new series 22 Kids and Counting Finding Mum: 50 Years Apart will be available to watch on Channel 5 on July 20 at 8pm.

Officials from California, New York, Kentucky and 20 other states allege the US administration acted unconstitutionally.

Two dozen states have sued the administration of United States President Donald Trump after the federal government froze $6.8bn in education funding.

On Monday, a group of 23 attorneys general and two governors filed a lawsuit in Rhode Island arguing that the decision to halt funds approved by the US Congress was “contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, and unconstitutional”.

The freeze extended to funding used to support the education of migrant farm workers and their children, recruitment and training of teachers, English proficiency learning, academic enrichment, and after-school and summer programmes.

The administration also froze funding used to support adult literacy and job-readiness skills.

“This is not about Democrat or Republican – these funds were appropriated by Congress for the education of Kentucky’s children, and it’s my job to ensure we get them,” Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear said in a statement.

“In Kentucky, $96 million in federal education funds are at risk. Our kids and our future depend on a strong education, and these funds are essential to making sure our kids succeed.”

While the government was legally required to release the money to the states by July 1, the federal Department of Education notified states on June 30 that it would not be issuing grant awards under those programmes by that deadline. It cited the change in administration as its reason.

Schools in Republican-led areas are particularly affected by the freeze in federal education grants.

Ninety-one of the 100 school districts that receive the most money per student from four frozen grant programmes are in Republican congressional districts, according to an analysis from New America, a left-leaning think tank. New America’s analysis used funding levels reported in 2022 in 46 states.

Republican officials have been among the educators criticising the grant freeze.

“I deeply believe in fiscal responsibility, which means evaluating the use of funds and seeking out efficiencies, but also means being responsible – releasing funds already approved by Congress and signed by President Trump,” said Georgia schools superintendent Richard Woods, an elected Republican.

“In Georgia, we’re getting ready to start the school year, so I call on federal funds to be released so we can ensure the success of our students.”

The Office of Management and Budget said the pause is part of a review to ensure funds are not used to “subsidize a radical leftwing agenda”.

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Environmental groups filed a federal lawsuit Friday to block a migrant detention center being built on an airstrip in the heart of the Florida Everglades.

The lawsuit seeks to halt the project until it undergoes a stringent environmental review as required by federal law. There is also supposed to be a chance for public comment, according to the lawsuit filed in Miami federal court.

The center dubbed “Alligator Alcatraz” by Gov. Ron DeSantis is set to begin processing people who entered the U.S. illegally as soon as next week, the governor said Friday on “Fox and Friends.”

The state is plowing ahead with building a compound of heavy-duty tents, trailers and other temporary buildings at the Miami-Dade County-owned airfield in the Big Cypress National Preserve, about 45 miles west of downtown Miami.

The lawsuit names several federal and state agencies as defendants.

Payne and Anderson write for the Associated Press.

June 26 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, the nonprofit’s arm that covers South Carolina, can’t sue the state over its closing off of the nonprofit’s Medicaid funding because it provides abortions.

“The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed our right to exclude abortion providers from receiving taxpayer dollars,” wrote Gov. Henry McMaster, R-S.C., in an X post Thursday.

“Seven years ago, we took a stand to protect the sanctity of life and defend South Carolina’s authority and values,” he added, “and today, we are finally victorious.”

The 6-3 decision followed the court’s ideological makeup, with the three liberal judges in dissent while the six conservative judges ruled in support.

The court’s syllabus noted 42 U.S. Code Section 1983, which allows private parties to file suit against state officials who violate their Constitutional rights. However, in the opinion of the Court, which was delivered by Justice Neil Gorsuch, he wrote that “federal statutes do not automatically confer [Section 1983]-enforceable ‘rights.'”

“This is especially true of spending-power statutes like Medicaid, where ‘the typical remedy’ for violations is federal funding termination, not private suits,” he continued.

“No court has addressed whether that Medicare provision creates [Section 1983] rights,” he later wrote.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the dissent, and she also referred to Section 1983.

“South Carolina asks us to hollow out that provision so that the State can evade liability for violating the rights of its Medicaid recipients to choose their own doctors,” Jackson stated. “The Court abides South Carolina’s request. I would not.”

South Carolina had announced in July of 2018 that Planned Parenthood could no longer participate in the state’s Medicaid program, under a state law that prohibits the use of its own public funding for abortions.

The order further affected patients in that it had the effect of also blocking Planned Parenthood patients from receiving services such as breast exams, sexually transmitted diseases and contraception.

Planned Parenthood South Atlantic announced on its social media platform Thursday that, “Today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that people using Medicaid in South Carolina no longer have the freedom to choose Planned Parenthood South Atlantic as their sexual and reproductive health care provider.”

“If you are a patient using Medicaid, keep your appointment,” the post continued. “We’re still here to provide you with the low or no cost care you deserve.”

The post concluded with “We’re in this with you, and we aren’t going anywhere.”

AUSTIN, Texas — A group of Dallas-area families and faith leaders have filed a lawsuit seeking to block a new Texas law that requires copies of the Ten Commandments be posted in every public school classroom.

The federal lawsuit, filed Tuesday, claims the measure is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of church and state.

Texas is the latest and largest state to attempt a mandate that has run into legal challenges elsewhere. A federal appeals court on Friday blocked a similar law in Louisiana. Some families have sued over Arkansas’ law.

The plaintiffs in the Texas lawsuit are a group of Christian and Nation of Islam faith leaders and families. It names the Texas Education Agency, state education Commissioner Mike Morath and three Dallas-area school districts as defendants.

“The government should govern; the Church should minister,” the lawsuit said. “Anything else is a threat to the soul of both our democracy and our faith.”

Ten Commandments laws are among efforts, mainly in conservative-led states, to insert religion into public schools. Supporters say the Ten Commandments are part of the foundation of the United States’ judicial and educational systems and should be displayed.

Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott signed the Ten Commandments measure into law on June 21. He also has enacted a measure requiring school districts to provide students and staff a daily voluntary period of prayer or time to read a religious text during school hours.

Opponents say the Ten Commandments and prayer measures infringe on others’ religious freedom and more lawsuits are expected. The American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation have said they will file lawsuits opposing the Ten Commandments measure.

Under the new law, public schools must post in classrooms a 16-by-20-inch or larger poster or framed copy of a specific English version of the commandments, even though translations and interpretations vary across denominations, faiths and languages and may differ in homes and houses of worship.

The lawsuit notes that Texas has nearly 6 million students in about 9,100 public schools, including thousands of students of faiths that have little or no connection to the Ten Commandments, or may have no faith at all.

The Texas Education Agency did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment. The law takes effect Sept. 1, but most public school districts start the upcoming school year in August.

Vertuno writes for the Associated Press.

June 20 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday unanimously upheld a federal law that allows victims of terrorism to sue two Palestinian entities in U.S. courts.

The decision reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals in the New York-based 2nd Circuit that found the law denied the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority fair legal process.

All nine justices ruled that the bipartisan 2019 law, called the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, does not violate due process rights of the PLO and PA.

The lawsuit and appeal involve cases from the early 2000s and not the Israel-Hamas war and airstrikes between Israel and Iran. It was based on the Antiterrorism Act of 1990, which creates a federal civil damages action for U.S. nationals injured or killed “by reason of an act of international terrorism.”

Founded in 1964, the PLO is internationally recognized as the official representative of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories. The PA, founded in 1994, is the Fatah-controlled government body that exercises partial civil control over the Palestinian enclaves in the West Bank.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 46-page opinion that included a concurrence by Justice Clarence Thomas and backed by Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wanted to define the boundaries of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

Lawsuits by U.S. victims of terrorist attacks in Israel can move forward in American courts.

“It is permissible for the Federal Government to craft a narrow jurisdictional provision that ensures, as part of a broader foreign policy agenda, that Americans injured or killed by acts of terror have an adequate forum in which to vindicate their right to ATA compensation,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court.

In April, the high court consolidated two cases for arguments: a Justice Department appeal and an appeal by the family of Israeli-American Ari Fuld, who was fatally stabbed at a shopping mall in the West Bank in 2018.

The Biden administration initially intervened in Fuld’s case and another one brought by 11 American families who sued the Palestinian leadership groups and were awarded $650 million in a 2025 trial for several attacks in Israel.

Sue Cleaver has played Eileen Grimshaw in Coronation Street for 25 years but quit the role earlier this year. She has now revealed if she will ever appear on a rival soap

Former Coronation Street star Sue Cleaver has revealed if she will ever appear on a rival soap following her final appearance as Eileen Grimshaw airing earlier this month. The 61-year-old actress announced her decision to bid farewell to Weatherfield at the start of this year, after an impressive 25 years on the ITV soap.

At the time, she issued a heartfelt statement: “I’ve had 25 privileged years of working on Coronation Street,” adding further, “The door is still firmly open but as I reached my 60th year, I decided it was time to embrace change, look for new adventures and live fearlessly.”

Sue hasn’t been idle during her tenure on the Street – she took a hiatus to tread the boards as Mother Superior in Sister Act before gracing our screens as a panellist on ITV’s Loose Women in 2024.

She also enjoyed a stint on I’m a Celebrity… Get Me Out of Here! Back in 2022. But now she has the time to commit to other projects, will Sue be popping up on a rival soap like Coronation Street or EastEnders?

It’s not unheard of for actors to pop up in multiple soap universes, with the likes of Denise Welch and Michelle Collins appearing on both EastEnders and Coronation Street.

Speaking in a new interview, Sue says she is “chuffed” with her Corrie legacy, and believes she was given “a wonderful send off” but admits she is ready to “live fearlessly.”

“I think people forget that you either have courage or you don’t, courage is a muscle, start really small and put yourself out of your comfort zone for a couple of minutes a day, enquire about a book club or evening class, because that muscle really does,” the actress muses.

Sue continues to recall to The Sun how filming her final scenes “was really weird feeling, but it felt right” and it was “the right time” to go. She is now ready to take advantage of her new found “freedom” after spending over two decades at ITV.

“I love doing Loose Women, there are other things I want to do and there is a lot more of the world I want to see,” Sue admits. But when it comes to going over to the dark side and popping into The Queen Vic or the Woolpack, Sue is adamant that she is still loyal to Corrie.

She rules out appearing on another soap “at this stage” as she is still “very committed to Corrie”, adding: “I’ve been incredibly fortunate and it gave me the opportunity that not many actresses have, to be at home, to be there for my son in the morning and put him to bed at night and to have a proper home life, whereas normally you have to go where the work is. I’ve been extremely fortunate, it’s not lost on me how lucky I’ve been, it has a big place in my heart.”

Speaking to the Mirror in May, Sue opened up on her decision to have co-star Ryan Thomas return for her final episodes, as his character Eileen’s son Jason Grimshaw makes a huge offer. Sue shared: “Ryan was there from the start, and he was inconveniently living in Thailand, and it wouldn’t be too far of a jump to expect that if Eileen was going to make a leap, that she would involve her son.

“And so when I decided to leave, like over a year ago, I rang Ryan, and I said, ‘Ryan, I’m going to tell them that I’m going, and if they ask me about exits, I’d really like to say that you’d come back and take me out, but I don’t know whether they’d go for it or not’.

“And he just went, ‘Oh my gosh, of course, I would’, which was so lovely for me. And it was just so nice to have him back and filming those final scenes with him. It just felt like I’d come full circle really.”

Coronation Street airs Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays at 8pm on ITV1 and ITV X.

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