U.S. District Judge James Patrick Hanlon ruled that attorneys representing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut Sarsour’s allegations that he was targeted in retaliation for protected speech. The judge ordered his release from a county jail in Indiana, where he had been held since March 30, while immigration proceedings continue.

Sarsour, a Palestinian-born lawful permanent resident who has lived in the United States for more than three decades, was detained after the government classified him as a foreign policy threat. His attorneys argued that the action was motivated by his public criticism of Israel and support for Palestinian rights.

In his ruling, Hanlon wrote that the government had not adequately explained why Sarsour was suddenly deemed a threat after years of lawful residence and repeated reviews of his immigration status. The judge stated that invoking foreign policy interests does not automatically override constitutional protections for free expression.

Sarsour was released several hours after the decision. In a statement, he said he was relieved to return to his family after nearly 80 days in detention and vowed to continue speaking on behalf of Palestinians and broader humanitarian causes.

The case has also drawn attention to concerns about detainee health care. Sarsour, who has Type 2 diabetes, lost more than 30 pounds during his detention, according to his attorneys, who alleged that inadequate monitoring of his condition placed him at serious medical risk. His legal team cited those health concerns as a factor supporting his release.

DHS did not immediately comment on the ruling. Earlier this month, a department spokesperson rejected allegations of mistreatment in ICE custody, stating that detainees receive adequate food and medical care, and described Sarsour as both a criminal and a terrorist.

The ruling comes amid broader scrutiny of detention conditions in U.S. immigration facilities. An investigation by KFF Health News and The Associated Press found that hundreds of detainees in at least 33 states have filed federal lawsuits alleging medical neglect while in custody.

Sarsour has no criminal record in the United States. Court records show he was convicted by an Israeli military court in 1989 of throwing a Molotov cocktail and stones at Israeli forces and in 1995 of attempting to possess weapons and ammunition. Sarsour has denied committing those offenses.

Hanlon noted that U.S. authorities had long been aware of the Israeli convictions and had considered them multiple times during reviews of Sarsour’s immigration status, including assessments related to naturalization eligibility. Despite that history, the government did not seek his detention until this year.

Government attorneys argued that Sarsour did not enjoy the same First Amendment protections as U.S. citizens. Hanlon rejected that position, writing that individuals lawfully present in the United States are entitled to constitutional protections, including free speech rights.

The judge also cited Sarsour’s longstanding community ties in Milwaukee, including his wife, six children and nine grandchildren, all of whom are U.S. citizens, as factors weighing in favor of release while the immigration case proceeds.

The disciplinary action follows a wave of nationwide unrest that began in December as demonstrations over rising living costs and later evolved into broader anti-establishment protests. The movement reached its peak in January before continuing in smaller forms on university campuses across the country.

According to the Fars news agency, the university’s Disciplinary Committee issued separate preliminary rulings ordering the expulsion of six students for their alleged participation in unrest that took place in February.

Fars reported that the students were accused of organizing and leading unauthorized gatherings, using language deemed insulting by authorities, engaging in activities considered hostile to the Islamic Republic, and committing other disciplinary violations.

The report did not indicate whether the students face separate criminal proceedings in Iran’s judicial system, including before revolutionary courts, which frequently handle cases involving national security and political offenses.

Among the allegations cited by Fars was the display and promotion of the Lion and Sun emblem, a historic national symbol that appeared on Iran’s flag before the 1979 Islamic Revolution. The emblem is often associated with opponents of the current political system and supporters of exiled opposition figure Reza Pahlavi.

Sharif University of Technology, widely regarded as Iran’s most prestigious engineering and scientific institution, has historically been a focal point for student activism and political debate.

The protests that spread across Iran earlier this year drew international attention and prompted criticism from foreign human rights organizations, which accused authorities of carrying out a harsh crackdown. Iranian officials have rejected those accusations, maintaining that violence during the unrest was driven by individuals they describe as terrorists backed by the United States and Israel.

Neither the university nor Iranian authorities immediately released additional details regarding the disciplinary rulings or the appeals process available to the affected students.

The comments came days after European Union member states approved new migration rules that permit the establishment of so-called “return hubs” outside the bloc, where rejected asylum seekers and migrants could be transferred after being denied permission to remain in EU territory.

Turk said the measures must be implemented in full compliance with international human rights and refugee law, stressing that EU governments cannot transfer their legal obligations to third countries.

“EU states cannot simply outsource their human rights obligations to third states in this context,” Turk said in a statement.

The new framework reflects a broader shift across Europe toward stricter migration controls, as governments face sustained political pressure from anti-immigration and far-right parties that have gained support in several countries in recent years.

European policymakers have increasingly focused on improving deportation and repatriation procedures after years of criticism that existing systems were ineffective. According to EU figures cited by officials, fewer than 30 percent of individuals ordered to leave the bloc are ultimately returned to their countries of origin.

Turk cautioned that returning migrants to countries where they could face persecution, abuse or other serious harm would violate the principle of non-refoulement, a cornerstone of international refugee and human rights law.

“International human rights law and refugee law are very clear — no-one should be returned to a place where they would be at risk of serious human rights violations or other irreparable harm,” he said.

The UN rights chief expressed particular concern about the detention and transfer of vulnerable groups, including children, describing such actions as highly sensitive exercises of state authority that carry significant risks of rights violations.

Under the new rules, migrants subject to deportation orders must cooperate with authorities and leave EU territory. Those deemed security threats, considered likely to abscond, or who refuse to comply may be detained for up to two years.

Turk called for robust oversight mechanisms to ensure respect for due process, family unity and the best interests of children. He said deportation decisions should be based on individual assessments and should not be executed before legal appeals have been completed.

He also urged European governments to avoid linking migration to security concerns in public debate and called for a more balanced approach that recognizes migrants’ contributions to European economies and societies.

The migration package marks one of the most significant changes to the EU’s return system in recent years and is expected to remain a subject of debate among human rights organizations, national governments and EU institutions as implementation begins.

The comments came days after European Union member states approved new migration rules that permit the establishment of so-called “return hubs” outside the bloc, where rejected asylum seekers and migrants could be transferred after being denied permission to remain in EU territory.

Turk said the measures must be implemented in full compliance with international human rights and refugee law, stressing that EU governments cannot transfer their legal obligations to third countries.

“EU states cannot simply outsource their human rights obligations to third states in this context,” Turk said in a statement.

The new framework reflects a broader shift across Europe toward stricter migration controls, as governments face sustained political pressure from anti-immigration and far-right parties that have gained support in several countries in recent years.

European policymakers have increasingly focused on improving deportation and repatriation procedures after years of criticism that existing systems were ineffective. According to EU figures cited by officials, fewer than 30 percent of individuals ordered to leave the bloc are ultimately returned to their countries of origin.

Turk cautioned that returning migrants to countries where they could face persecution, abuse or other serious harm would violate the principle of non-refoulement, a cornerstone of international refugee and human rights law.

“International human rights law and refugee law are very clear — no-one should be returned to a place where they would be at risk of serious human rights violations or other irreparable harm,” he said.

The UN rights chief expressed particular concern about the detention and transfer of vulnerable groups, including children, describing such actions as highly sensitive exercises of state authority that carry significant risks of rights violations.

Under the new rules, migrants subject to deportation orders must cooperate with authorities and leave EU territory. Those deemed security threats, considered likely to abscond, or who refuse to comply may be detained for up to two years.

Turk called for robust oversight mechanisms to ensure respect for due process, family unity and the best interests of children. He said deportation decisions should be based on individual assessments and should not be executed before legal appeals have been completed.

He also urged European governments to avoid linking migration to security concerns in public debate and called for a more balanced approach that recognizes migrants’ contributions to European economies and societies.

The migration package marks one of the most significant changes to the EU’s return system in recent years and is expected to remain a subject of debate among human rights organizations, national governments and EU institutions as implementation begins.

The 13 independent experts welcomed the signing of the memorandum but said the framework places primary emphasis on military withdrawal, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, nuclear commitments, sanctions relief and a proposed $300 billion reconstruction fund.

In a joint statement, the experts said the Iranian population, which has endured both wartime destruction and domestic repression, remains largely absent from the agreement’s provisions.

The warning comes after months of conflict that caused extensive damage across Iran, with infrastructure including hospitals, schools and religious sites reportedly affected by military strikes.

The experts said the humanitarian situation had been deteriorating even before the outbreak of hostilities, citing ongoing crackdowns on anti-government dissent and challenges linked to the presence of large Afghan refugee populations.

According to the statement, Iranian authorities have intensified actions against perceived opposition since the conflict began in late February. The experts alleged that thousands of people had been detained and reported cases involving torture, enforced disappearances, mock executions and coerced confessions.

The group, which includes UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran Mai Sato, said at least 156 executions had been carried out since the start of the conflict.

They also expressed concern over reports that at least 42 individuals were executed on espionage-related charges, alleging that convictions relied on confessions obtained under torture. Access to legal representation for many detainees remains restricted, the experts said.

The statement further highlighted the seizure of assets belonging to approximately 1,500 Iranians and said extensive internet restrictions imposed during the conflict had disrupted businesses, limited communications and contributed to worsening economic conditions.

The experts noted that unemployment had risen sharply while inflation had reached 115 percent, adding to the economic burden faced by households.

While welcoming the proposed reconstruction fund, the group stressed that assistance should directly benefit civilians and support long-term social and economic recovery.

“A deal that serves geopolitical interests while leaving the Iranian people behind is not a peace agreement worthy of the name,” the experts said.

They argued that the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz merely restores pre-conflict conditions and should not be viewed as the sole measure of success in peace negotiations.

The experts called for provisions including a moratorium on executions of political prisoners, the release of individuals held without charge and broader protections for civil and political rights.

They also urged negotiators to ensure that the views of Iranian citizens are reflected in any final settlement intended to shape the country’s future.

The demonstration, organized by the National Resistance Council of Iran (NRCI), was intended to protest a recent wave of executions in Iran and was expected by organizers to attract as many as 100,000 participants.

In an order issued on Thursday, Paris police said the event posed a serious security risk given the “particularly tense national and international context.” Authorities warned that confrontations between groups holding opposing political views could disrupt public order, especially because the planned route passed near government buildings and diplomatic missions.

The NRCI said the prohibition was communicated after business hours on Thursday and described the reasons given by authorities as “bogus.” The group has filed an emergency legal challenge seeking to overturn the ban before the planned gathering.

Organizers suggested the decision may have been linked to diplomatic contacts between France and Iran, noting that the cancellation came hours after a telephone conversation between French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot and his Iranian counterpart.

France’s Foreign Ministry rejected that assertion, stating that Barrot neither raised the planned demonstration nor requested its cancellation during the call.

The NRCI serves as the political wing of the People’s Mujahedin of Iran (PMOI), also known as the MEK, a group designated as a terrorist organization by Iran’s government.

The organization has staged numerous demonstrations in Paris over the years, including rallies linked to anti-government protests in Iran and recent regional tensions involving Tehran.

French authorities highlighted concerns that competing Iranian diaspora groups, many of which maintain deep political disagreements, could come into conflict during the event.

The planned march was intended to draw attention to executions carried out in Iran during the recent conflict involving Tehran, Israel and the United States.

Human rights organizations have reported that more than 40 people have been executed in Iran since the outbreak of the conflict, including individuals allegedly connected to anti-government protests.

Iranian authorities have also carried out executions involving individuals accused of links to banned opposition movements, including the MEK, as well as outlawed Kurdish and Sunni Baluch organizations.

The court challenge filed by organizers is expected to be considered on an expedited basis ahead of the scheduled date of the rally.

Osama Abdullah, head of the village council in Jiljiliya, north of Ramallah, said settlers targeted the village’s main mosque during the early hours of the morning, causing damage to an ablution facility and leaving hostile graffiti on the structure.

“Settlers set fire to the ablution room, caused damage to the village’s main mosque, and scrawled hostile slogans on the outer walls,” Abdullah told AFP.

Journalists who visited the site observed extensive smoke and fire damage inside the mosque. The ceiling, walls and flooring were blackened, while Hebrew-language graffiti was visible on exterior surfaces.

Among the inscriptions were slogans reading “vengeance” and “hi from the Hilltop Youth,” a reference to a loosely organized group of Israeli settlers frequently accused by Palestinians and rights organizations of carrying out attacks against Palestinian communities in the West Bank.

According to Abdullah, the attackers arrived between 2 a.m. and 3 a.m. and were unable to enter the mosque because its doors were locked. He said they subsequently set fire to a lower-level room used for ablutions before leaving the area.

The blaze was extinguished by Palestinian civil defense teams with assistance from residents of Jiljiliya and neighboring villages, he added.

The Israeli military did not immediately respond to requests for comment regarding the incident.

The attack comes against a backdrop of heightened tensions and increasing reports of settler violence in the West Bank since the outbreak of the Gaza war in 2023. Palestinian officials and international organizations have repeatedly raised concerns over attacks targeting homes, agricultural land, vehicles and religious sites.

The United Nations has recently warned that violence involving Israeli settlers has reached record levels, reporting an average of six incidents per day resulting in casualties, property damage or both.

Israel has occupied the West Bank since 1967. The territory is home to approximately three million Palestinians as well as more than 500,000 Israeli settlers living in settlements outside East Jerusalem.

Most of the international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal under international law, a position rejected by successive Israeli governments.

Settlement expansion and settler-related violence have become increasingly contentious issues under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, which includes several ministers who openly support settlement growth.

Residents of Jiljiliya said the attack has heightened fears within the community, while local leaders called for accountability and protection of religious sites from further violence.

No arrests were immediately reported.

A US airstrike in southern Somalia that killed at least 12 civilians, including eight children, in November 2025 has raised renewed questions over the consequences of American military operations targeting armed groups in the country.

The strike took place in Jamaame, a town in Somalia’s Lower Juba region, on the morning of Nov. 15, according to accounts gathered from residents and reviewed evidence from the attack site. The United States has not publicly acknowledged civilian deaths from the operation.

Residents said the attack began shortly after 9 a.m. when aircraft were heard above the town. Witnesses described a series of explosions that struck residential areas and a religious school, leaving homes damaged or destroyed.The victims included children who had been returning from Qur’an school, families inside their homes, and a pregnant woman, according to relatives and witnesses.

The US military confirmed that it had conducted an operation against al-Shabaab, an armed group linked to al-Qaida that has carried out attacks in Somalia and neighbouring countries. The strike was part of a wider campaign of US air operations aimed at disrupting the group.Residents said the aircraft involved were likely drones.

The weaponry used in the attack was not publicly disclosed, but witnesses described repeated missile strikes consistent with the use of remotely piloted aircraft.At one home in Jamaame, relatives said the attack killed Safiyo Hassan Abukar, who was heavily pregnant, along with her children Abdifatah, 10, Abdinasir, 7, Hussein, 6, and Abdurahman, 4.Mohamed, the children’s grandfather, said he rushed to the scene after hearing explosions and found debris scattered around the destroyed house.

He said Abdifatah was often close to his mother and helped her with household tasks. He described Abdinasir as a child who regularly asked him to pray so he could memorise the Qur’an.Other residents reported similar losses.

Marian Haji Abdi Guled said her children were returning from Qur’an school when the attack occurred. She said the sound of aircraft overhead caused fear among residents before the strikes hit.According to Guled, her children were injured when missiles struck nearby.

She said the area became chaotic as residents attempted to move away from the attacks.Maryan Nur Buruji said her pregnant stepdaughter sought shelter at the Qur’an school with her two-year-old child. She said the school was later hit, killing the woman while the toddler survived.

Another resident, Mohamed Hassan Abdulle, said he returned to find his home destroyed and his wife, Farhiyo Hassan Nuur, and their 10-month-old daughter, Layla, dead.Farmers working outside the town also described receiving urgent calls from relatives as the attack unfolded.Gedow Ibrahim said he was working in his sesame fields when his wife called, warning him that drones were flying overhead.

He told her to remain inside, but later received another call saying their home had been hit.He said his daughters Maryan, 9, and Farhiyo, 7, were killed, while another child, Amin, 8, was injured by shrapnel.The attack also killed other residents, including a local imam, according to witnesses.

Residents said at least 15 explosions were heard and that numerous homes were damaged. Witnesses estimated that about 18 houses were destroyed, while the school was heavily damaged.The incident is among the deadliest reported civilian casualties from a US operation in Somalia in recent years.

Previous major incidents involving US forces in Somalia include the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu, known as “Black Hawk Down,” which resulted in significant casualties during a failed US military mission.The strike occurred months after the start of the second Trump administration, during a period when US policy toward Somalia was being reassessed.

In early 2025, US defence officials held discussions with senior officers from US Africa Command, which oversees American military operations on the continent.A directive issued during that period changed procedures governing aspects of US military operations, according to reporting on the policy shift. The effect of those changes on individual operations was not publicly detailed.

US officials have repeatedly said American military action in Somalia is aimed at preventing attacks by al-Shabaab and reducing the group’s ability to operate. The group has controlled territory in parts of Somalia at various times and has carried out attacks against civilians, government forces, and international targets.

Human rights organisations have previously raised concerns about civilian harm from airstrikes in Somalia and other conflict zones, calling for greater transparency around targeting decisions and investigations into possible civilian casualties.The Jamaame strike has renewed scrutiny over the balance between counterterrorism operations and civilian protection in areas where armed groups operate among local populations.

For the families affected, the consequences remain centred on the loss of relatives who were inside homes, travelling from school, or working nearby when the strikes occurred.Abdullahi Mohamed Abo Sheikh Ali, whose family was killed, said he believed civilians had been caught in the attack.

“The Americans bombed us,” he said. “Children, women and elders were bombed. They spared nothing.”

The resolution, sponsored by China, extends the mandate of the UN political mission in Afghanistan, known as UNAMA, until June 17, 2027, and reinforces its role in supporting humanitarian assistance and promoting inclusive governance without discrimination based on sex, religion or ethnicity.

It also calls for the “full, equal, meaningful and safe participation” of women, minorities, youth and persons with disabilities in Afghanistan’s political and social life, according to the text adopted by the Council.

The vote followed reports of the arrest of at least 30 women in the western city of Herat this month for allegedly violating Taliban-imposed dress regulations, an incident that triggered a rare protest which was dispersed by security forces, according to the UN mission.

The Taliban, who regained control of Afghanistan in 2021 following the withdrawal of US-led forces, have imposed sweeping restrictions on women’s rights, including limits on education beyond primary school and access to employment, drawing repeated condemnation from international organisations.

United States deputy ambassador Jennifer Locetta said the Taliban must meet international obligations, end abuses against women and girls, and address counterterrorism commitments, including concerns over militant activity in the country.

Pakistan’s UN ambassador Asim Ahmad said the resolution also reflected concern over the presence of armed groups operating in Afghanistan that pose a threat to regional stability, amid ongoing cross-border tensions between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The Security Council resolution further authorises UNAMA to facilitate dialogue between the Taliban and regional actors and to support Afghanistan’s economic recovery, including efforts related to financial systems and the possible return of central bank assets for humanitarian use.

According to the findings, settlement-origin produce is entering Europe under “Israeli” labeling, allowing it to benefit from preferential trade arrangements that are intended only for goods produced within Israel’s internationally recognized borders.

Under existing trade rules, Israeli exports to the EU and UK may qualify for reduced tariffs, but products originating from settlements in occupied territories are not eligible, as they are considered illegal under international law.

The report raises concerns over transparency in supply chains and enforcement of trade regulations related to settlement products.