weigh

NEW YORK — Former Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene after a federal appeals court on Friday declined to reconsider a decision that put the government a step closer to deporting him, the pro-Palestinian activist’s lawyers said.

Judges on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia voted 6-5 against having the court’s full complement of judges review the ruling. In January, a three-judge 3rd Circuit panel found that a federal judge in New Jersey who had sided with Khalil and ordered his release last year from immigration detention didn’t have jurisdiction to decide the matter.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which is involved in representing Khalil, said his lawyers will ask the 3rd Circuit for an order preventing the decision from taking effect — and barring Khalil from being detained or deported — while it asks the Supreme Court to take up the case.

An appeal to the high court is expected in the coming months, possibly in late summer.

“Today’s decision is not the final word, and we still strongly believe in our arguments going forward,” ACLU senior counsel Brett Max Kaufman said in a statement.

In its January ruling, the 3rd Circuit found that Khalil’s lawsuit challenging his detention and U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz’s subsequent rulings in the case were premature because federal law requires that such challenges first move through the separate immigration court system. That system is part of the Justice Department, not the judicial branch.

The decision didn’t decide the key issue in Khalil’s case: whether the Trump administration’s effort to throw Khalil out of the U.S. over his campus activism and criticism of Israel is unconstitutional.

Judge Cheryl Ann Krause, who had voted for the 3rd Circuit to review the decision, wrote in a dissent that the court was “abdicating our duty to meaningfully review Khalil’s constitutional claims. The Judicial Branch, she wrote, cannot fulfill its role as a check on the other branches of government, “if we write ourselves out of relevance and leave the Executive Branch to check itself.”

Khalil, 31, has also appealed to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Louisiana, where he was detained, after the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld his removal order.

Through his lawyers, Khalil argued that the immigration judge who issued the order failed to consider relevant evidence and wrongly upheld a charge that he had misrepresented information on his application for legal permanent resident status. That charge, Khalil’s lawyers said, was brought in retaliation for his protest activity.

The immigration judge suggested Khalil could be deported to Algeria, where he maintains citizenship through a distant relative, or Syria, where he was born in a refugee camp to a Palestinian family. Khalil’s lawyers have said he would face mortal danger if forced to return to either country.

An outspoken leader of the pro-Palestinian movement at Columbia, Khalil was arrested in March 2025. He then spent three months detained in a Louisiana immigration jail, missing the birth of his child.

Federal officials have accused Khalil of leading activities “aligned to Hamas,” though they have not presented evidence to support the claim and have not accused him of criminal conduct. They also accused Khalil of failing to disclose information on his green card application.

Khalil has dismissed the allegations as “baseless and ridiculous,” framing his arrest and detention as a “direct consequence of exercising my right to free speech as I advocated for a free Palestine and an end to the genocide in Gaza.”

The government justified the arrest under a seldom-used statute that allows for the expulsion of noncitizens whose beliefs are deemed to pose a threat to U.S. foreign policy interests. In June 2025, Farbiarz ruled that justification would likely be declared unconstitutional and ordered Khalil released.

President Trump’s administration appealed that ruling, arguing the deportation decision should fall to an immigration judge, rather than a federal court. The 3rd Circuit ruled 2-1 in the administration’s favor.

Judge Emil Bove, who was involved in investigating student protesters while a top Justice Department official, did not participate in the 3rd Circuit vote on whether to review the decision. He later issued an order denying a request by Khalil’s lawyers that he step aside from the matter, calling it moot.

Sisak writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Lindsay Whitehurst contributed to this report.

President Trump’s push to redraw the nation’s U.S. House districts received mixed results Tuesday as South Carolina senators defied his desires, but Missouri’s top court upheld a new map that could help Republicans win an additional seat in the November midterm elections.

Rather than waning, a national redistricting battle that began 10 months ago has intensified — inflamed by a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that weakened the federal Voting Rights Act and provided grounds for states to try to eliminate voting districts with large minority populations.

Republican lawmakers in Louisiana are wrestling with how politically aggressive to be when redrawing House districts after the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a majority-Black district as an illegal racial gerrymander.

The ripples of the Louisiana ruling already have led to new U.S. House districts in Tennessee and have extended to Alabama, where Republican Gov. Kay Ivey announced an Aug. 11 special primary for four of the state’s seven congressional districts. That came after the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday overturned an order mandating use of a map with two largely Black districts. The state plans to switch to a map passed in 2023 that has only one majority-Black district.

Republicans think they could gain as many as 14 seats from new House maps enacted so far in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Florida and Tennessee. Democrats, meanwhile, think they could gain six seats from new maps in California and Utah. The Virginia Supreme Court last week struck down a redistricting effort that could have yielded four more winnable seats for Democrats.

Missouri map splits Kansas City district

Missouri was the second Republican state, after Texas, to redraw its congressional districts at Trump’s urging last year. Since then, numerous other states have joined the redistricting battle.

During arguments earlier Tuesday, attorneys for voters challenging Missouri’s new map focused on changes to a Kansas City-based district long represented by Democratic U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, who previously was the city’s mayor, the first Black person to hold the post.

The new map takes a compact urban district that covered 20 miles and two counties and stretches it 200 miles over 15 counties, distorting it “into a sprawling behemoth that cuts clear across the state to unite territories that share nothing in common,” said Abha Khanna, an attorney who has represented Democrats in voting and redistricting cases across the country.

A lower court ruled in March that the map as a whole satisfied the compactness requirement, even though the Kansas City district is less compact. No Missouri court has ever struck down a congressional map for not being compact, said attorney John Gore, who defended the districts on behalf of the Republican Party.

A second case heard by the high court centered on whether the new map took effect in December, as asserted by Republican Atty. Gen. Catherine Hanaway and Republican Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, or whether it should have been suspended when referendum signatures were submitted.

To suspend the map before validating the signatures would let activists temporarily undercut laws by submitting boxes of fraudulent signatures, Missouri Solicitor Gen. Lou Capozzi argued.

But to not immediately suspend the map “would dilute the referendum right, if not destroy it altogether,” said attorney Jonathan Hawley, arguing for voters who sued.

Republican officials contend the new districts can be suspended only after Hoskins determines the petition meets constitutional requirements and has enough valid signatures. Hoskins has until Aug. 4, the day of Missouri’s primary elections, to make that determination. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of a state judge in March who agreed with Republicans’ position.

Louisiana hearing leads to death threats

Louisiana state Sen. Jay Morris, a Republican who drafted redistricting bills that would eliminate one or both of the state’s majority-Black districts, told lawmakers Monday that he received death threats after Friday’s contentious hearing in which he told members of the public to “shut up.”

Morris acknowledged the outburst but denied the Louisiana Democratic Party’s assertion — blasted across social media and in a news release — that he also used the derogatory term “boy” toward its executive director, Dadrius Lanus, who is Black.

State Sen. Gary Carter, one of three Black Democrats serving alongside six white Republicans on the Senate committee overseeing redistricting, told the Associated Press on Tuesday that he had withdrawn from the committee “to help restore the decorum and focus that this moment demands” after shouting at Republicans during Friday’s hearing. Carter publicly apologized Monday to Morris and his Senate colleagues for having “lost my temper” and for any remarks that were taken as “personal attacks.”

Carter is the nephew of U.S. Rep. Troy Carter, a Democrat who represents New Orleans and is at risk of losing his seat in the redistricting process. Gary Carter is being replaced on the committee with state Sen. Royce Duplessis, a Democrat representing New Orleans.

South Carolina weighs political risks of redistricting

The Republican push for South Carolina to join the national redistricting battle by redrawing its U.S. House map fizzled Tuesday as an initial vote in the state Senate fell short.

Trump had urged South Carolina to redraw its congressional districts ahead of the November elections in an attempt to help Republicans win another seat in the closely divided chamber. The state House had voted in favor of letting lawmakers return after the regular session ends this week to consider redistricting, and had proposed a new map that could eliminate the state’s only Democratic-held seat.

But the Senate had to give permission to take up redistricting, too.

The 29-17 vote failed, with just two votes short of the two-thirds needed. Five Republicans joined all the Democrats in the chamber to reject the proposal.

Trump said Monday on social media that he was closely watching the redistricting vote, urging South Carolina senators to “be bold and courageous” and to delay the House primaries so new districts can be drawn.

Although Republicans have a supermajority in the chamber, some GOP senators weren’t sure the proposed map would guarantee the party could unseat longtime Democratic U.S. Rep. James E. Clyburn. They also said it could push enough Democrats into other districts to backfire, resulting in a 5-2 or even a 4-3 Republican split.

Republican Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey acknowledged the pressure from Trump, but said he doesn’t like being asked to bend to someone’s will instead of doing what’s best for his state.

“I got too much Southern in my blood,” Massey said. “I’ve got too much resistance in my heritage.”

Lieb, Collins, Brook and Chandler write for the Associated Press. Brook reported from Baton Rouge, La.; Chandler from Montgomery, Ala.; Collins from Columbia; and Lieb from Jefferson City, Mo.

Ant McPartlin and Dec Donnelly have had their say on the I’m A Celebrity live final, which descended into chaos when Adam Thomas was crowned champion

Ant McPartlin and Dec Donnelly have waded in on the I’m A Celebrity pay row after Jimmy Bullard raged about losing his fee for wanting to quit the show.

Ex footballer Jimmy had said he wanted full pay and that was why he decided to call out ‘I’m a celebrity get me out of here’ during a trial rather than in camp sparking a huge row with Adam Thomas. Jimmy said for his own reasons – thought to be his father’s health – he wanted to go home, but because of his contract, he would have to lose a trial rather than ask to leave early.

During an extraordinary moment in the final, Jimmy said: “Listen, Adam and all of you can be upset with me and I absolutely threw him under the bus, I get it and I’ll wear that.

“But what I don’t stand on, is someone being abusive, aggressive and intimidating, I don’t stand on that.” He then called on Ant and Dec to have their say on what happened.

Speaking for the first time in their podcast about the live fallout, Ant and Dec appeared to side with Adam as they suggested he was used as ‘collateral damage’ in Jimmy’s plan.

“Jimmy used Adam as collateral damage,” said Ant. “We tried to be professional and keep it on track. It was a real shame – we were supposed to hear from every person.

“The whole thing was weird to me,” he added. “Which is why I said quite firmly on the night said I disagree.”

Asked on the night why he quit, Jimmy said: “There were a lot of heavy reasons, which I don’t want to go into now. Also, [I told Ollie], can you talk me through my contract? Because my contract’s pro-rata. Let me give you an example, if I go home and call Adam back with me, I get full pay. That money’s big for me and my family.

“If I go home, stay in, and go back and pull the plug, I get a small percentage of that. I made my mind up in that lightbulb moment – I have to go home. Then all hell breaks loose. You can all be upset. I threw him under the bus. I absolutely get it. I’ll wear that. But what I don’t stand on is someone being abusive, aggressive or intimidating. I don’t stand on it. You didn’t show none of that. None of the C-words. You didn’t.”

The pair also clarified what happened between them and David and Jimmy in the car park, which was snapped by paparazzi.

Speaking on their podcast ‘Hanging Out with Ant & Dec’, Dec explained: “I went up to David Haye and he went ‘How brilliant was that? Wasn’t that great?’ I went well…

“It was certainly talk about TV, I wouldn’t call it great but anyway we had a laugh and we were cool and then I’ve walked off and seen Jimmy Bullard and I just shook his hand and I was like ‘look after yourself’ and he was like ‘yeah, yeah cheers, cheers, cheers’. So there was no confrontation. I wasn’t flanked by two security guards as it said in the paper.”

Setting the record straight Ant insisted there was no argument in the car park, with Dec adding: “I saw David Haye and he said ‘what about that then, hope you get some good ratings for that one.'”

Ant also added: “I just felt it was a shame the crowning moment of I’m A Celebrity South Africa couldn’t have been more celebratory. If anything, remember it for Craig Charles having a bath in the washing up bowl – that’s how I would remember it.”

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 .

WASHINGTON — The Food and Drug Administration will hold a meeting in the summer to consider easing restrictions on more than a half-dozen peptide injections, a group of unapproved therapies that have become popular among wellness influencers, fitness gurus and celebrities.

The meeting announcement Wednesday follows repeated pledges by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to loosen regulations on peptides, which are often pitched as a quick way to build muscle, heal injuries or appear younger. There’s little research behind those claims and most peptides have not been reviewed for safety by the FDA.

Kennedy has discussed using peptides for his own injuries. And some major supporters of his Make America Healthy Again movement are big proponents of them, including Gary Brecka, a self-described “longevity expert” who sells various peptide formulas through his website.

The FDA said in a federal notice Wednesday that it will ask a panel of outside advisors to review seven peptides at a meeting in July, specifically whether they should be added to a list of substances that can be safely produced by pharmacies. In the meantime, the agency said it would soon remove the chemicals from a restrictive list reserved for unapproved, high-risk drugs. The peptides under discussion include some of the most popular among influencers, such as BPC-157, which is marketed to heal injuries and reduce inflammation.

“The Wild West is about to become wilder,” said Dr. Peter Lurie, a former FDA official who now leads the Center for Science in the Public Interest. In an interview, Lurie said allowing peptides on the market without clinical testing poses a “profound threat” to FDA’s decades-old system for vetting drugs.

“I don’t see why one would take the path of a proper drug approval if there is now this less rigorous, alternative path to market,” he said.

Under President Biden, the FDA added nearly 20 peptides to the federal list of substances that should not be produced by compounding pharmacies — businesses that mix medications that aren’t available from drugmakers.

At the time, the FDA’s panel of pharmacy advisors voted overwhelmingly that the peptides did not meet the criteria for substances that can be safely compounded. And FDA regulators agreed, saying later that the substances “present significant safety risks,” because most have not been extensively tested in humans.

Many of the FDA advisors and internal staff who oversaw those decisions no longer work for the agency. The FDA’s pharmacy panel currently has a number of vacancies, which Kennedy could fill before the July meeting.

Kennedy previewed Wednesday’s move in an interview with podcast host Joe Rogan. Both men have repeatedly spoken about peptides and claimed to have benefited from their use.

RFK Jr. claims personal benefit from peptides

“I’m a big fan of peptides,” Kennedy told Rogan. “I’ve used them myself and with really good effect on a couple of injuries.”

Given Kennedy’s statements, Lurie said it was doubtful the drugs would receive real scrutiny from FDA.

“Everybody knows the outcome that the secretary wants,” Lurie said. “I don’t believe for one moment that what’s going on here is an honest investigation of whether these products should be compounded.”

Scott Brunner of the Alliance for Pharmacy Compounding said the coming meeting will be the start of a “protracted process.” Even if the panel votes to make the peptides available, and the FDA agrees, the agency will still have to draft and publish rules on the change, he noted.

Peptides are essentially the building blocks of more complex proteins. Inside the human body, peptides trigger hormones needed for growth, metabolism and healing.

In recent years peptides have become widely known through the blockbuster success of GLP-1 medications, which the FDA has approved for treating obesity and diabetes. Other FDA-approved peptides include insulin for diabetics and hormone-based drugs for several medical conditions.

But many of the peptides promoted online have never been approved, making them technically illegal to market as drugs. Several peptides, such as BPC-157 and TB-500, are banned by international sports authorities as doping substances.

But that has not stopped them from gaining a foothold in the burgeoning marketplace for wellness hacks and alternative remedies.

“I think this is a disaster in the works,” said Dr. Eric Topol of Scripps Research Translational Institute, who has studied the issue. “These peptides have no data to support their safety and efficacy.”

Meanwhile, some dietary supplement makers have begun mixing peptides into capsules, protein powders and gummies. At a recent FDA meeting, the industry argued for expanding the federal definition of supplements to permit the use of newer ingredients such as peptides in their products.

Safety risks were cited previously

When the FDA added a number of injectable peptides to its list of restricted substances in 2023, it cited safety risks including cancer and liver, kidney and heart problems.

That triggered pushback from wellness entrepreneurs, compounding pharmacies and their allies in Washington.

Last year several members of Congress, including Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama, sent letters to Kennedy asking him to lift limits on peptide production.

Some in the compounding industry argue that FDA restrictions have given rise to an illicit market of imported chemicals from China and other countries, which are not subject to U.S. drug standards.

Kennedy has echoed those concerns.

“With the gray market you have no idea if you’re getting a good product,” Kennedy told Rogan. “And a lot of this stuff that we’ve looked at is just very, very substandard.”

Perrone writes for the Associated Press.