Category News

US court says student activist Rumeysa Ozturk must be sent to Vermont

By in News, World News

The administration of President Donald Trump has continued to face setbacks in its attempts to deport pro-Palestinian student protesters, as courts probe whether the students’ rights have been violated.

On Wednesday, separate courts issued orders related to two of the most high-profile cases: that of Mahmoud Khalil and Rumeysa Ozturk.

In New York, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ordered Ozturk, a 30-year-old Turkish student from Tufts University, be moved to Vermont no later than May 14.

That ruling marked a rejection of a Trump administration appeal to delay the transfer and keep Ozturk in Louisiana, where she has been held in an immigration detention centre since late March.

“We’re grateful the court refused the government’s attempt to keep her isolated from her community and her legal counsel as she pursues her case for release,” said Esha Bhandari, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union who represents Ozturk.

Separately, in Newark, New Jersey, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to deliver specifics about its rationale for describing Khalil, a leader in Columbia University’s student protests, as a threat to US foreign policy.

Inside Ozturk’s case

The latest ruling in Ozturk’s case highlighted a practice that has become common under the Trump administration: Many foreign students involved in the pro-Palestinian protest movement have been transferred to detention centres far from their homes.

Ozturk’s ordeal began on March 25, when six plain-clothed police officers arrested her outside her home in a suburb of Boston, Massachusetts, where she went to school.

Supporters believe Ozturk, a PhD student and Fulbright scholar from Turkiye, was targeted for having co-written an opinion article in her student newspaper, calling on Tufts University to acknowledge Israel’s war on Gaza as a genocide.

The US is a longtime ally of Israel and has supported its military campaign in Gaza. The Trump administration has accused Ozturk of having “engaged in activities in support of Hamas, a foreign terrorist organization that relishes the killing of Americans”, though it has not offered evidence.

After she was detained outside her home, Ozturk was reportedly whisked across state borders, first to Vermont and later to Louisiana, all within a 24-hour period, according to her lawyers.

Critics have described those rapid transfers as a means of subverting due process, separating foreign students from family, friends and legal resources they can otherwise draw upon.

In Ozturk’s case, the confusion led her lawyers to file a petition for her release in Massachusetts, as they did not know where she was when they submitted the paperwork.

On April 18, a lower court ruled that Ozturk must be returned to Vermont no later than May 1, as it weighed her habeas petition: a type of complaint that challenges the legality of one’s detention.

“No one should be arrested and locked up for their political views. Every day that Rumeysa Ozturk remains in detention is a day too long,” Bhandari, her lawyer, said in a statement.

But the Trump administration appealed, seeking an emergency stay of Ozturk’s transfer to Vermont.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected (PDF) that request, however. It said the government had failed to show any “irreparable harm” that Ozturk’s transfer would cause.

“Faced with such a conflict between the government’s unspecific financial and administrative concerns on the one hand, and the risk of substantial constitutional harm to Ozturk on the other, we have little difficulty concluding ‘that the balance of hardships tips decidedly’ in her favor,” the court wrote.

Though Ozturk is expected to be transferred to Vermont, where her habeas petition will be heard, the Trump administration is slated to continue with deportation proceedings in Louisiana.

The appeals court, however, explained that this should be no challenge for the Trump administration, given that Ozturk can appear through video conference for those hearings.

“The government asserts that it would face difficulties in arranging for Ozturk to appear for her immigration proceedings in Louisiana remotely,” the court wrote. “But the government has not disputed that it is legally and practically possible for Ozturk to attend removal proceedings remotely.”

The Trump administration has the option of appealing the decision to the Supreme Court.

Inside Khalil’s case

Likewise, Khalil faces deportation proceedings in Louisiana while his habeas petition is heard in New Jersey, closer to his home in New York City.

On March 8, he became the first high-profile case of a student protester being arrested for deportation. Agents for Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrived at his student housing building at Columbia University, where his wife, a US citizen, filmed him being handcuffed and led away.

Khalil himself was a US permanent resident who recently graduated from Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs. He is of Palestinian descent.

On Tuesday, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in New Jersey rejected a bid by the Trump administration to transfer Khalil’s habeas petition to Louisiana.

And on Wednesday, US District Court Judge Michael Farbiarz ordered the Trump administration to provide a specific assessment of the risks Khalil poses by being in the US.

Trump’s Secretary of State Marco Rubio has cited Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 to justify Khalil’s detention and deportation. A rarely used provision of the law allows secretaries of state to remove noncitizens who could cause “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences”.

But Rubio has so far been vague about what those consequences might be in Khalil’s case. The student protest leader has been charged with no crime.

Judge Farbiarz also required the Trump team to supply a catalogue of every case in which US officials have employed that law. The Trump administration is expected to appeal that judge’s order as well.

What does the truce between the Houthis and the US mean for Yemenis?

By in News, World News

The United States and the Houthis have agreed to a ceasefire.

The Houthis, who control large areas of Yemen, began attacking Israel and commercial shipping and some US navy vessels in the Red Sea after Israel launched its war on Gaza in October 2023.

In response to Houthi attacks on shipping lanes, the US carried out attacks on the Iran-aligned group in Yemen.

Under the truce deal mediated by Oman, the US will halt its strikes on Houthi sites, and the Yemeni group will stop attacking US ships.

But the agreement does not include a truce in the conflict between Israel and the Houthis.

So, will Israel also stop its attacks? What does this all mean for the acute humanitarian crisis facing Yemenis?

Presenter: James Bays

Guests:

Maysaa Shuja al-Deen – Senior researcher, Sana’a Center for Strategic Studies

Ahmed al-Ashwal – Political and military analyst

Players’ union partially successful in legal challenge v ATP

By in News, Sports News
Getty Images
Russell Fuller
Tennis correspondent
@russellcfuller

The Professional Tennis Players’ Association (PTPA) has been partially successful in a legal challenge against the men’s ATP Tour.

The association alleged the ATP tried to pressure players into signing pre-prepared statements saying they had no prior knowledge of the wider legal action launched by the PTPA against several governing bodies in March.

It sought a court order preventing the ATP from engaging in “improper, coercive or threatening communications” with players on the matter.

In Wednesday’s ruling in New York, Judge Margaret Garnett found the ATP’s “conduct to date, regardless of intent, could readily have been viewed as potentially coercive, deceptive or otherwise abusive”.

In the wider lawsuit, against the ATP, the women’s WTA Tour, the International Tennis Federation and the International Tennis Integrity Agency, the PTPA cited “anti-competitive practices and a blatant disregard for player welfare”.

It had asked the judge to issue an order which would prevent all four defendants from communicating with players about their involvement in the process.

Judge Garnett’s ruling, however, was only directed at the ATP.

It states the ATP is prohibited from “retaliating, or threatening retaliation” against any player who is participating, or thinking of participating, in the action.

The ATP has also been ordered to preserve all past communications with players about the litigation. But the PTPA’s wish that the information should be disclosed was rejected by the judge, who also declined to issue a blanket ban on the tour communicating on the matter.

The banning of all communication would “harm the ability of the ATP to permissibly discuss and respond to this litigation in lawful ways,” the judge added.

An ATP spokesperson said: “ATP acknowledges the court’s ruling and will promptly comply with its directions. We remain committed to supporting our players, upholding the integrity of the game, and fully defending ourselves in the ongoing legal proceedings.”

The PTPA was co-founded by 24-time Grand Slam champion Novak Djokovic, who is not one of the players listed as a co-plaintiff in any official court document.

Related topics

  • Tennis

Players’ union partially successful in legal challenge v ATP

By in News, Sports News
Getty Images
Russell Fuller
Tennis correspondent
@russellcfuller

The Professional Tennis Players ‘ Association (PTPA) has been partially successful in a legal challenge against the men’s ATP Tour.

The association alleged the ATP tried to pressure players into signing pre-prepared statements saying they had no prior knowledge of the wider legal action launched by the PTPA against several governing bodies in March.

It sought a court order preventing the ATP from engaging in “improper, coercive or threatening communications” with players on the matter.

In Wednesday’s ruling in New York, Judge Margaret Garnett found the ATP’s “conduct to date, regardless of intent, could readily have been viewed as potentially coercive, deceptive or otherwise abusive”.

In the wider lawsuit, against the ATP, the women’s WTA Tour, the International Tennis Federation and the International Tennis Integrity Agency, the PTPA cited “anti-competitive practices and a blatant disregard for player welfare”.

It had asked the judge to issue an order which would prevent all four defendants from communicating with players about their involvement in the process.

Judge Garnett’s ruling, however, was only directed at the ATP.

It states the ATP is prohibited from “retaliating, or threatening retaliation” against any player who is participating, or thinking of participating, in the action.

The ATP has also been ordered to preserve all past communications with players about the litigation. But the PTPA’s wish that the information should be disclosed was rejected by the judge, who also declined to issue a blanket ban on the tour communicating on the matter.

The banning of all communication would “harm the ability of the ATP to permissibly discuss and respond to this litigation in lawful ways”, the judge added.

An ATP spokesperson said: “ATP acknowledges the court’s ruling and will promptly comply with its directions. We remain committed to supporting our players, upholding the integrity of the game, and fully defending ourselves in the ongoing legal proceedings”.

The PTPA was co-founded by 24-time Grand Slam champion Novak Djokovic, who is not one of the players listed as a co-plaintiff in any official court document.

Related topics

  • Tennis

David Attenborough’s rallying cry on 99th birthday after saying ‘the end is near’

By in Entertainment News, News

Sir David Attenborough is campaigning on his 99th birthday to urgently call for change in overfishing of the oceans

Sir David Attenborough filming on location in Dorset for the film Ocean he feels so passionately about.(Image: Conor McDonnell)

Sir David Attenborough is using his 99th birthday to deliver a powerful message to world leaders: You have one last big chance to save our seas.

The film Ocean, released today, features what is expected to be his final scenes shot on location, on the Jurassic Coast cliffside in Dorset. As the cinema film is not a BBC production, Sir David is free from the corporation’s impartiality rules. And the broadcaster uses this freedom to hit out at industrial fishing ships “sent by a few wealthy nations” that he says are “starving coastal communities of the food sources they have relied on for millennia”.

As small Liberian fishing craft are dwarfed by industrial trawlers off the west coast of Africa, Sir David argues: “This is modern colonialism at sea. Some 400,000 industrial vessels now hunt every corner of the ocean. Nowhere is too far or too deep.”

He also explains how ocean “jungles” and “meadows” absorb far more carbon than rainforest on land and, if they are not destroyed by boats, they can help Earth avoid climate disaster.

A sheepshead wrasse in a kelp forest in California.
A sheepshead wrasse in a kelp forest in California. (Image: Olly Scholey)

It is hoped the feature-length film will play a decisive role in saving biodiversity and protecting the planet from climate change.

Article continues below

In it, Sir David also blasts giant fishing nets and trawler boats, saying: “The idea of bulldozing through a pristine rainforest causes outrage. Yet we do the equivalent underwater thousands of times every day.”

And he warns the human campaign of violence against sea creatures even rivals the power of huge natural disasters.

He explains: “Sharks and turtles survived the extinction of the dinosaurs but may not outlive this. The change is simple. We once fished a few places near shore to feed our communities. Now, we fish everywhere all the time, and I have lived through this change.”

Film footage shows how the chain the trawlers drag behind them scours the seabed, forcing the creatures it disturbs into the net behind. They are often seeking a single species, so more than three-quarters of what they catch may be discarded. “It’s hard to imagine a more wasteful way to catch fish,” says Sir David.

The movie was timed to come out shortly before the UN Ocean Conference, being held in France next month, which will ratify ambitious new goals for ocean protection.

In a more positive moment of the film, Sir David says it is not too late to make a difference. Given the chance, the oceans can recover and provide food, store carbon in seabeds, kelp and seagrass, and allow wildlife to thrive.

The film includes shots of kelp forests off California where fishing has been banned. They have now recovered to be healthy ecosystems once again, boosting lobster populations.

Sir David Atttenborough during his first scuba dive in Australia in 1957
Sir David during his first scuba dive in Australia in 1957

Those increased populations spill over into the wider sea, where catches have increased. There is also a report on the world’s largest marine protected area, off Hawaii.

And Sir David points to the reversal of fortunes for the world’s whales after an international whaling ban was finally secured.

In sites where fishing is banned, coral recovers from bleaching because fish eat smothering algae, which allows the ecosystem to regrow. “The ocean can recover faster than we thought possible,” Sir David says. “If we just let nature take its course, the sea will save itself. If we can protect areas on land where the entire human population requires space to live, surely we can do it in the sea.

“Restoring the ocean is for everyone on Earth. In front of us is a chance to protect our climate, our food. After a lifetime of filming the natural world, I cannot remember a more exciting opportunity for our species. This could be the moment of change. Nearly every country on Earth has just agreed on paper to achieve this bare minimum and fully protect a third of the ocean. Together, we now face the challenge of making it happen.”

At 99, Sir David still has the twinkle in his eyes of a much younger filmmaker when he speaks of the great creatures and beauty found beneath the waves.

Thinking of 1957, when he was on the Great Barrier Reef, he says: “The first time I used scuba gear to dive on a coral reef, I was so taken aback by the spectacle before me I, momentarily, forgot to breathe.” Sir David concludes in the film: “It is my great hope that we all come to see the ocean, not as a dark and distant place with little relevance to our lives on land, but as the life blood of our home.

“After almost 100 years on the planet, I now understand the most important place on Earth is not on land.”

As well as its vital message, the film has the stunning photography typical of an Attenborough project. Images include clownfish close-ups, Hawaiian green sea turtles on a beach, and a pod of dolphins feeding.

David with King Charles at the Ocean premiere
David with King Charles at the Ocean premiere

Toby Nowlan, Ocean’s director and producer, said: “Few could argue David Attenborough is one of the greatest storytellers of all time, and so for this film to be his greatest, most important message ever is no small thing.

“Indeed it surely doesn’t get bigger than this. It was only by making this film that my eyes were truly opened to how key the ocean is to all life on Earth, and how capable it is of recovery.

“I truly believe that if millions of people see this film, we could make history. We could fully protect a third of the ocean and change the course of our future. Producing and directing this film has been the privilege of my career.”

The premiere was attended on Tuesday night by King Charles and key figures from entertainment and conservation. TV star Penny Lancaster, who watched the film with her 19-year-old son Alastair said: “Sir David is one of those iconic figures we assume will be in our lives for ever.

“He says in the film he is coming to the end of his life and it is like this is his last opportunity to send a strong message. Sir David’s devotion to humanity and nature in harmony is similar to that of the King.”

Michael Palin, a friend of Sir David, told the Mirror : “David is the gold standard to which all presenters aspire. He is simply the best and has been for a long, long time.”

Trawling the seabed is still permitted in 74% of England’s inshore marine protected areas and in 92% of Scotland ’s, the Blue Marine Foundation charity said. Marine minister Emma Hardy said: “Our precious marine animals and habitats have been under threat for too long. This government is committed to protecting and restoring our oceans to good health, and banning destructive bottom trawling where it is damaging protected seabed habitats.”

Article continues below