US Supreme Court allows Trump’s controversial immigration raids to continue

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the administration of President Donald Trump can resume sweeping immigration raids in the city of Los Angeles, casting aside concerns over potential civil liberties violations.

In a 6-3 decision, the conservative-majority court rolled back restrictions on the administration’s aggressive approach to immigration raids, allowing agents to target people based on factors such as language and ethnicity.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

Writing a dissent for the liberal minority, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that the ruling “has all but declared that all Latinos, US citizens or not, who work low-wage jobs are fair game to be seized at any time, taken away from work, and held until they provide proof of their legal status to the agents’ satisfaction”.

The highest US court has rarely placed limits on the Trump administration’s assertions of executive authority. Monday’s ruling invalidates previous restrictions imposed by District Judge Maame Frimpong, who said there was a “mountain of evidence” that immigration agents were violating the constitutional rights of residents in Los Angeles.

The Supreme Court offered little explanation of the reasoning behind the decision, continuing what critics say is a trend of the nation’s highest court annuling the arguments of lower courts without grappling with their content.

“The Supreme Court’s order is outrageous because it includes no reasoning itself but puts on hold the well-reasoned opinions of the lower federal courts,” Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a US watchdog group, said in a press statement.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said in a social media post following the ruling that it would continue to ‘FLOOD THE ZONE” in Los Angeles, where the majority of people arrested in immigration raids have had no criminal history.

Frimpong had previously ruled that immigration agents could not target people based on factors such as what language they were speaking or their ethnicity, type of job, or location. The Trump administration had argued that the ruling wrongly restrained immigration enforcement efforts, which have sometimes swept up and detained US citizens as well as people in the US without legal status.

“Individuals with brown skin are approached or pulled aside by unidentified federal agents, suddenly and with a show of force, and made to answer questions about who they are and where they are from,” a lawsuit brought against the government by immigrant rights groups stated.

The Trump administration’s hardline immigration agenda has often been driven by depictions – without evidence – of immigrants as an “invading” force. Government agencies and officials have adopted language previously restricted to hard-right anti-immigrant groups.

The capitulation of the US media is not an aberration

American democracy is arguably in more peril than at any moment in recent history. Not only are United States President Donald Trump and his Republican allies seeking to guarantee that Americans never again participate in a truly free and fair election, but public officials and Trump-aligned figures in the media industry are also manipulating the information environment at an unprecedented scale. The point isn’t that information disappears; rather, it’s that those in power curate, delay, and redirect it.

Consider the so-called Epstein files related to the investigation into child sex trafficking by the late financier Jeffrey Epstein. The Trump administration has worked hard to bury it.

In early February, Attorney General Pam Bondi promised transparency on Fox News, claiming that Epstein’s client list was “sitting on [her] desk right now”.

Weeks later, however, Bondi and the US Justice Department she oversees executed a sharp about-face: she released “phase 1” of the Epstein files, but the release turned out to be little more than “a whole lot of heavily-redacted nothing”. In July, she shut the door on the client list altogether, with officials saying no additional Epstein files would be released to the public.

Many have reasonably concluded that Bondi is seeking to protect Trump, whom she reportedly briefed in May about repeated references to him in the files.

That suspicion was only reinforced by House Speaker Mike Johnson’s decision to adjourn Congress to prevent a vote on the release of the Epstein files, and his desperate attempt to recast Trump as an FBI “informant” working to bring Epstein down. Taken together, all this looks less like transparency and more like one of the more consequential government cover-ups in US history.

This pattern fits a larger authoritarian playbook: Trump has also heavily consolidated executive power, militarised the immigration system, and repeatedly used emergency powers, among other actions that have undermined the US Constitution.

The same authoritarian instincts show up in efforts to police dissent and narrow the boundaries of acceptable speech.

The media – the so-called “fourth pillar of democracy” – have, at times, pushed back against some of Trump’s overreaches. But too often, they have buckled under pressure from the White House. In December 2024, even before Trump took office, ABC News settled a defamation lawsuit with him for $15m.

Seven months later, Paramount, CBS News’s parent company, also settled a lawsuit that many experts thought it could easily win; it paid Trump $16m. Anchors and talk show hosts who have been too critical have been quietly removed, as newsrooms have shifted right to try not to antagonise the US president.

Paramount was perhaps the most explicit in this shift. While pursuing a merger with Skydance Media to create a massive conglomerate, it promised to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) from its policies. The new company is acquiring The Free Press and elevating its conservative founder, Bari Weiss, to a major editorial role; it has also pledged to address “bias”.

Apart from caving in to pressure from the White House, American journalism has also done little to address threats against speech protected by the First Amendment — especially Israel-related speech. It has been weak in the face of Israel’s war on journalism, which has banned international journalists from entering Gaza and killed more than 270 media workers.

After Israel killed several Palestinian journalists at a Gaza hospital late last month, American journalist Jeremy Scahill lambasted mainstream American and other Western news outlets: “I have never been more ashamed of our profession… The blood is on the hands of western news organizations that [have] systematically dehumanised Palestinians… and [served] as the conveyer belts for the lies of [the] Israeli regime…Shame on our profession.”

Rather than protest Israel’s ban on journalists or its systematic killing of Palestinian media workers, mainstream American media outlets have largely continued to dehumanise Palestinians and prop up Israeli narratives. Multiple studies have documented persistent reporting asymmetries that heavily favour Israel, particularly with respect to sourcing, victim humanisation, and framing.

None of this should surprise close observers.

Scholars have long argued that the American political system is inconsistent with any real notion of democracy, and that US media are not fully independent, but embedded firmly within the state-corporate power structure.

As media scholar J Herbert Altschull once put it, “the powerful have never been comfortable with the idea of a free press.” Social scientist and scholar Robert Entman was even more direct when he said, “Government sources and journalists join in an intimacy that renders any notion of a genuinely ‘free’ press inaccurate.”

In a sense, then, the Trump years are more of an acceleration than an aberration. The administration and its allies are more aggressive and explicit than their predecessors in their efforts to control information, punish dissenting speech, and reshape corporate media.

American democracy itself has always been more illusion than reality. Free and fair elections, meaningful checks and balances, and a truly independent press have been fragile, more myth than practice. What is different now is the speed and bluntness with which these myths are unravelling. The manipulation of information, criminalisation of dissent, and accommodation of corporate media are not incidental; they are mechanisms through which democracy further erodes.

Unless the Trump administration is reined in — and unless American journalism lives up to its professed values — Americans will be left not with a democracy in crisis, but with the shell of one.

Turkiye’s opposition CHP supporters clash with police outside Istanbul HQ

Police have fired pepper spray and detained supporters of Turkiye’s main opposition party as crowds gathered outside the headquarters of the Republican People’s Party (CHP) in Istanbul to protest against a court order removing a senior party official.

Footage from the scene on Monday showed protesters clashing with police before riot units pushed into the crowd. Demonstrators were seen clutching their eyes after being sprayed while officers led others away.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

The confrontation came after a court ruled last week that Ozgur Celik, the CHP’s Istanbul provincial chairman, be replaced by Gursel Tekin, a former deputy party leader.

CHP national leader Ozgur Ozel dismissed the ruling as “null and void”, saying Tekin had been expelled from the party. Celik also insisted he would not hand over the post.

Tekin entered the building on Monday after a lengthy standoff, telling reporters he was not working for the state and would focus on resolving the party’s legal disputes.

Al Jazeera’s Sinem Koseoglu, reporting from Istanbul, said prosecutors launched the case after complaints from a faction within the CHP, accusing the dismissed leadership of irregularities and corruption during the party’s 2023 congress.

“For opposition supporters, this is seen as a judicial coup against them while rival CHP members insist the ruling addresses corruption,” she said.

‘Political interference’

The order is the latest in a yearlong series of measures against the CHP that has seen hundreds of members detained.

In March, Istanbul Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s main political rival, was arrested, triggering the largest street demonstrations in Turkiye in a decade.

Erdogan’s critics have accused him of trying to neutralise opposition momentum before elections.

The Turkish government has rejected accusations of political interference, insisting the judiciary acts independently.

Officials said the cases against CHP figures stem from corruption charges, which the party denied and argued are designed to weaken the opposition.

Koseoglu added that the court’s move has raised questions over the CHP’s future direction: “Some wonder if this will solidify the party’s base or lead to splits with speculation over whether current leaders might even resign or form a breakaway party.”

Interior Minister Ali Yerlikaya defended the court’s ruling, warning that ignoring the decision amounted to obstructing justice. “The state will do what is necessary against any illegal initiative,” he said.

Access to major social media platforms was restricted in Turkiye after the CHP urged supporters to gather at its Istanbul office.

French government collapses after PM Bayrou ousted in confidence vote

France’s Prime Minister Francois Bayrou has lost a confidence vote in Parliament, hours after warning that the country was facing “life-threatening” debt, deepening a political crisis and handing President Emmanuel Macron the task of finding a fifth prime minister in less than two years.

Bayrou, who has been in office for nine months, will tender his resignation on Tuesday, his office said. Macron’s office said a new appointment will be made “in the coming days”.

Recommended Stories

list of 1 itemend of list

The National Assembly voted on Monday to bring down the Bayrou-led government over its plans to cut about 44 billion euros ($52bn) to reduce the country’s debt. Bayrou had staked his leadership on securing parliamentary approval for a budget plan that aimed to slash a deficit almost double the EU’s three percent ceiling and a debt load worth 114 percent of GDP.

The 74-year-old leader is the sixth prime minister under President Macron since the head of state was first elected in 2017. His ousting would leave Macron with a new domestic headache at a time when he is leading diplomatic efforts on the Ukraine war.

Before the vote, Bayrou warned lawmakers: “You have the power to bring down the government, but you do not have the power to erase reality. Reality will remain relentless: expenses will continue to rise, and the burden of debt, already unbearable, will grow heavier and more costly.”

But parliament rejected his appeal, with 364 votes against him and only 194 in favour.

Jean-Luc Melenchon, leader of the hard-left France Unbowed, posted on X: “Macron is now on the front line facing the people. He too must go.” The left bloc holds a majority in the 577-seat parliament but not enough to form a government on its own.

Far-right leader Marine Le Pen also called for a snap election: “This moment marks the end of the agony of a phantom government.”

‘Crushing defeat’

“For Bayrou, this is a crushing defeat. Certainly a large majority voted against him and his austerity budget,” said Al Jazeera’s Natacha Butler, reporting from Paris.

She noted that opponents on both the far right and the left denounced the plan as unfair, saying it targeted some of the poorest people in France. Even some conservatives usually close to Bayrou turned against him, making it “an incredibly damning day for the former French prime minister in the National Assembly.”

Butler added that it was “another embarrassing moment” for Macron. “This is his second prime minister that he’s lost in a year since his surprise snap election in 2024,” she explained, recalling that Michel Barnier lasted only three months before being forced out by parliament.

Looking ahead, Butler said Macron faces limited options. “He’s not got many good choices. In fact, most of his choices are bad ones,” she said, warning that the president must now navigate mounting social unrest. France is expected to see strikes and protests from trade unions in the coming weeks, adding further strain on an already embattled government.

Hugo Drochon of the University of Nottingham told Al Jazeera that Macron’s options are narrowing. “Either he goes again for somebody from the centre-right party … or he reaches out to the socialists,” he explained, but warned that would require budget compromises.

Drochon also noted that the stakes extend beyond France’s domestic politics. “The biggest concern, at least from the financial markets, is not so much what’s going to be done, but that something gets done. They want a prime minister and a budget that actually addresses these issues,” he said.

He warned that if Macron fails to act swiftly, France risks deeper political paralysis and growing frustration among an already disillusioned public.

“What I think the French people are expecting is something to happen … can Macron name somebody who can find a way through? That would reassure everybody. That’s the big challenge,” he added.

The next government’s immediate task will be to push through a budget in an increasingly fractured parliament, the same challenge that ultimately sank Bayrou.

Hundreds of artists pledge boycott of Israeli film institutions over Gaza

More than 1,300 artists, including some Hollywood A-listers, have promised not to work with Israeli film institutions complicit in abuses against Palestinians as Israel intensifies its war on Gaza.

In a pledge released on Monday, the artists – who include Olivia Colman, Ayo Edebiri, Mark Ruffalo, Riz Ahmed, Tilda Swinton and Javier Bardem – decried the “unrelenting horror” in Gaza, where Israel has killed more than 64,000 Palestinians and flattened most of the territory.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

“Inspired by Filmmakers United Against Apartheid who refused to screen their films in apartheid South Africa, we pledge not to screen films, appear at or otherwise work with Israeli film institutions – including festivals, cinemas, broadcasters and production companies – that are implicated in genocide and apartheid against the Palestinian people,” the statement read.

Examples of being complicit in Israeli rights violations include “whitewashing or justifying genocide and apartheid, and/or partnering with the government committing them”, it added.

The pledge cited International Court of Justice rulings that concluded a genocide charge against Israel is plausible and found the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory is illegal.

Over the 23 months of the Gaza war, leading academics, rights groups and United Nations experts have accused Israel of committing genocide against Palestinians.

Genocide – defined by the UN as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group” – is one of the gravest war crimes.

Palestinian rights advocates have long called for celebrities to use their reach and status to bring awareness to the plight of Palestinians.

Oscar-nominated filmmaker Mike Lerner, one of the signatories to the statement, said the pledge was a “non-violent tool” to undermine the impunity that Israel enjoys for its conduct against Palestinians.

“It is the responsibility of every independently minded artist to use whatever powers of expression they possess to support the global resistance to overcome this horror,” Lerner said in a statement.

Hollywood has been historically pro-Israel, producing movies like the 1960 film Exodus, which valorised the founding of Israel, and regularly inserting positive references to the country in blockbusters.

But in recent years, many actors and directors have spoken out against Israel’s policies – sometimes to the detriment of their own careers.

For example, in 2023, actor Susan Sarandon, who signed Monday’s pledge, was dropped by her talent agency after attending a Palestine solidarity rally.

After the outbreak of the war in Gaza, Melissa Barrera, who also joined the boycott call, lost her role in the horror franchise Scream over social media posts critical of Israel.

Olivia Colman is also among the artists who decry the ‘unrelenting horror’ in Gaza [File: Chris J Ratcliffe/Reuters]

Still, voices sympathetic to Palestinians continue to grow louder in the film industry.

In March, No Other Land, an Israeli-Palestinian film focused on the ongoing destruction of the Palestinian community of Masafer Yatta in the occupied West Bank, won the Oscar for best documentary feature.

More recently, The Voice of Hind Rajab, which tells the story of a five-year old Palestinian girl who was trapped in a car with slain family members before Israeli soldiers also killed her, received a 23-minute standing ovation at the Venice Film Festival.

The movie centres on Rajab’s heart-wrenching calls to rescuers while under Israeli fire in Gaza City.

Monday’s pledge comes as Israel pushes to systematically destroy Gaza City, having already levelled most of the besieged enclave.

“As filmmakers, actors, film industry workers, and institutions, we recognise the power of cinema to shape perceptions,” the statement said.