What the trial of Brazil's ex-President Bolsonaro is about, prompting Trump's intervention
The case received renewed attention after President Donald Trump directly tied a 50% tariff on Brazilian imported goods to Bolsonaro's judicial situation, which Trump called a ' witch hunt.'
The Supreme Court's order for Bolsonaro to wear an ankle monitor, among other restrictions, came after Federal Police and prosecutors said Bolsonaro is a flight risk.
Authorities, listing multiple social media posts, also accused Bolsonaro of working with his son Eduardo to incite the US to interfere in the trial and impose sanctions against Brazilian officials.
On Friday, the US State Department announced visa restrictions on Brazilian judicial officials, prompting President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva 's to condemn what he called the unacceptable interference of one country in another's justice system.
Here's what you need to know about Bolsonaro's trial:
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
43 minutes ago
- Time of India
SC cancels Rs 295 crore land payout order over bizman's fake claim
Noida: The Supreme Court has struck down a Rs 295-crore compensation award to Hyderabad-based businessman Reddy Veeranna, ruling that the payment was secured through fraudulent claims and a deliberate suppression of facts regarding land ownership in Noida. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now A three-judge bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Ujjal Bhuyan set aside both the Allahabad high court's 2021 order and its own 2022 ruling that had granted enhanced compensation to Veeranna for land acquired in Sector 18. "The impugned order of the High Court dated October 28, 2021 passed in WP (Civil) 2272/2019 [Reddy Veeranna v State of Uttar Pradesh & ors] stands set aside, since fraud has vitiated the entire proceedings. As a corollary to the above, the judgment and order dated May 5, 2022 in Reddy Veerana (supra) (which too was obtained by playing fraud) is declared to be a nullity and stands recalled in exercise of our inherent powers," the court said in its order. The case revolves around over five bighas in Chhalera Banger village, jointly purchased in 1997 by Veeranna, Vishnu Vardhan, and T Sudhakar for Rs 1 crore. In 2005, Noida Authority partially acquired this land and later leased it to DLF for Rs 173 crore. The Mall of India now stands there. While the three co-owners initially contested the Authority's acquisition together, Veeranna subsequently began claiming exclusive ownership. He obtained a compromise decree from a trial court in 2006 — using a revoked power of attorney — which became the basis for recording his name as the sole owner in govt records. In 2019, Veeranna approached the high court, seeking enhanced compensation without making his co-owners party to the case. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The high court awarded him compensation at Rs 1.1 lakh per sqm. The Supreme Court not just upheld the HC order, but also removed a 50% development charge that had been deducted, raising Veeranna's total entitlement to around 360 crore. The payout eventually settled at 295 crore following discussions with the Authority. The apex court had, however, clarified then that it was not deciding on ownership. Vardhan, who claimed he was not informed about these proceedings, approached the SC in 2023, filing multiple petitions to challenge Veeranna's claim. He asserted that Veeranna had repeatedly misled the HC and SC, relying on an invalid decree procured through manipulation and concealment. In its judgment, the apex court found that Veeranna had consistently identified himself as a joint owner with Vishnu and Sudhakar in earlier proceedings, but abruptly changed his stance in 2019. The bench held that he had suppressed critical facts, including Vishnu's pending civil suit challenging the 2006 decree. "We have no hesitation to hold that Veeranna Reddy tailored a situation to suit his convenience by not impleading Vishnu as a party with the sole intention of obtaining an order in respect of not only the quantum of compensation payable for acquisition of the subject land but also a declaration as to his entitlement thereto — all, behind Vishnu's back. An attempt by Reddy to steal a march over Vishnu is clearly discernible which, without reference to anything more, does border on fraud," the court observed. The case has now been remanded in the high court for a fresh hearing of ownership and compensation with all parties present, including Vishnu and Sudhakar. While Veeranna has retained the compensation amount, he has furnished property securities worth Rs 295 crore through his firm Manyata-Pristine. It will remain deposited with the SC. Given the "magnitude of fraud", the SC has requested the high court chief justice to personally hear the case and conclude it preferably by the end of this year.
India Today
43 minutes ago
- India Today
American-born babies are American: Judge halts Trump birthright citizenship order
A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration's attempt to end birthright citizenship for children born in the US to undocumented or temporary immigrant parents, calling the move unconstitutional and legally ruling by US District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston marks the third federal court to stop the executive order in its tracks since the Supreme Court last month narrowed the authority of lower courts to issue nationwide Sorokin ruled that an exception applied in this case, where more than a dozen states demonstrated real financial harm tied to the order. 'A patchwork approach to the birthright order would not protect the states,' Sorokin wrote, noting the high mobility of residents between states and slamming the administration's failure to explain how a more limited injunction would function.'They have never addressed what renders a proposal feasible or workable The defendants' position in this regard defies both law and logic.'The decision maintains a nationwide injunction that preserves birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, pending further review by the courts. Sorokin added that his ruling is not the final word on the issue, but emphasized the constitutional implications of the executive action.'The President cannot change that legal rule with the stroke of a pen,' Sorokin said. 'Trump and his administration are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment but for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional.'The lawsuit was brought by a coalition of states led by New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who hailed the ruling as a critical defence of constitutional norms.'American-born babies are American, just as they have been at every other time in our Nation's history,' Platkin said in a statement. 'I'm thrilled the district court again barred President Trump's flagrantly unconstitutional birthright citizenship order from taking effect anywhere.'Government lawyers had argued that the injunction should be limited in scope to states' financial interests. Still, Sorokin rejected the idea, saying the administration failed to offer any coherent legal or administrative plan for how such limits would is the third time the executive order has been blocked. Earlier this month, a federal judge in New Hampshire prohibited the rule in a class-action lawsuit. That decision went into effect after no appeal was filed. On Wednesday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco also ruled against the order, upholding a nationwide injunction.A fourth ruling may be on the way. A Maryland judge said she would issue a similar decision if the appeals court agrees. - EndsWith inputs from Associated Press
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
No FIR yet by Parbhani cops in Santosh Suryawanshi custodial death case despite high court directive
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar: The Parbhani police have not yet registered an FIR in the Somnath Suryawanshi custodial death case more than three weeks after the Bombay high court's Aurangabad bench issued a directive to this effect. State govt on July 10 moved the Supreme Court against the high court bench's order of July 4 but the apex court has not yet taken cognisance of the appeal. There is no stay on the HC order that required the Parbhani police to register the FIR within a week (by July 11). The state's application to HC seeking an extension to implement its directive, is pending. "State govt's appeal was listed for a hearing today (Friday) before the SC bench but was adjourned to July 30," Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Maharashtra's chief standing counsel in the Supreme Court, told TOI. He preferred not to get into the specifics of the matter, explaining that the same was sub judice. On Friday, TOI made repeated calls and also sent text messages to Parbhani superintendent of police Ravindra Singh Pardeshi seeking his response on the matter. However, there was no response till the time of going to press. Lawyer Milind Sandanshiv, who represented Somnath's mother and petitioner Vijayabai in the high court, told TOI, "The Parbhani police should have registered the FIR. They have failed to take cognisance of the HC order as well as the reminder applications we have made to them to register the FIR. We will take a call on the next step at an appropriate time." On Dec 11, 2024, protests and a riot broke out in Parbhani over reports of an alleged desecration of a replica of the Indian Constitution. Somnath (35), a law student residing with his family in Pune and pursuing his studies at a college in Parbhani, was among the people arrested by the police in connection with the rioting case. After his initial custody remand, he was sent to jail in magisterial custody but succumbed on Dec 15, 2024, to injuries sustained in alleged police brutalities. His mother, Vijayabai, filed a petition in the HC seeking registration of an FIR against the policemen responsible for the alleged brutality. On July 4, the high court, while observing in an interim order that there was "prima facie material" indicating "custodial brutality and violation of constitutional rights, had directed the FIR to be registered at Mondha police station in Parbhani district within a week (by July 11). The FIR was to be based on a complaint application of Dec 18, 2024, by Vijayabai.
