At least seven dead after Russian bridge collapses onto train
At least seven people have died after a highway bridge collapsed in a region close to the Ukraine border, according to Russian emergency services.
The bridge in Bryansk brought down several heavy trucks onto a moving passenger train, with 30 people, including two children, also reportedly injured.
The Russian Emergencies Ministry said fire and rescue units were attempting to find people who had been travelling on the train.
In a statement posted to Telegram, Moscow Railway alleged the bridge had collapsed "as a result of illegal interference in transport operations".
"Unfortunately, there are seven fatalities," local governor Alexander Bogomaz said on Telegram, adding two people - including a child - are "seriously injured".
All casualties have been taken to medical facilities in the Bryansk region, he added.
Moscow's interregional transport prosecutor's office said an investigation had been launched.
Additional emergency workers, as well as rescue equipment and light towers for carrying out work at night have been sent to the area, according to Russian news agency Tass.
Pictures online showed mangled carriages and passengers helping each other climb out of the wreckage in the dark.
The incident took place about 100km (62 miles) from the Ukraine border.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
In Russia Airfield Attacks, Ukraine Aims for Strategic and Symbolic Blow
Ukraine's drone attack on airfields deep inside Russia on Sunday was a strategic and symbolic blow that military analysts said was designed to slow Moscow's relentless bombing campaign and to demonstrate that Kyiv can still raise the cost of war for the Kremlin. There were calls for a swift response across Russian media, and Ukrainians braced for retaliation even as they celebrated an operation that gave the beleaguered nation a much needed morale boost. Attacks Across Russia Ukraine carried out attacks in five regions across Russia, according to a statement from Russia's Defense Ministry on Sunday. Several aircraft caught fire at air bases in Murmansk and Irkutsk. Source: Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation By K.K. Rebecca Lai The extent of the damage of the simultaneous attacks was not fully known, with both sides putting out assessments that were not immediately verifiable. President Volodymyr Zelensky said that 117 drones were used in the attacks, known as Operation Spiderweb — with a corresponding number of operators involved in remotely piloting the aircraft. Ukraine's security services, known as the S.B.U., said that 41 Russian aircraft were destroyed or damaged, which Mr. Zelensky said accounted for 34 percent of the strategic cruise-missile carriers at air bases across three time zones. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Fox News
2 hours ago
- Fox News
Terror attack suspect who allegedly set victims on fire is in US illegally and more top headlines
1. Suspect yelled 'Free Palestine' while setting victims on fire in antisemitic attack 2. Colorado terror attack suspect in US illegally 3. Fetterman and McCormick set for high-stakes Pennsylvania forum 'DAMAGING DECISION' – Trump says tariff ruling could lead to 'economic ruination' of US. Continue reading … STEALTH SURPRISE – Ukraine's massive drone strike humiliates Putin, sets dozens of Russian bombers ablaze. Continue reading … 'JUST THE BEGINNING' – Illegal immigrants texted 'mission fail' after murdering mother, officials say. Continue reading … UPPING THE ANTE – Trump admin taking 'dramatically different approach' to combating drug cartels. Continue reading … CITY IN CRISIS – Business owners blast 'weakened leadership' as blue city ranks among most dangerous in US. Continue reading … -- BREAKNECK PACE – Trump's 20th week back in office to include meeting with German leader, call with China's Xi. Continue reading … SECURITY SWEEP – Dem lawmaker condemns Trump admin after staff member ends up in handcuffs. Continue reading … JILL'S POWER PLAY – New book paints former first lady as chief 'denier' of Biden's 'deterioration.' Continue reading … DOUBLE STANDARD? – Booker dragged for alleged 'salute' after media meltdown over Musk's similar wave. Continue reading … LATE-NIGHT COVERUP – Biden's allies go quiet after damning cognitive decline revelations. Continue reading … NOT LISTENING – Dem senator dodges question on whether Biden should have dropped out sooner. Continue reading … FAR-FETCHED FEARS – Variety editor claims Trump-era America mirrors dystopian TV shows. Continue reading … 'IN GOOD SHAPE' – Bill Clinton says he never saw cognitive decline in former President Biden. Continue reading … YEMISI EGBEWOLE – Trump is winning the culture war while Democrats are still hiring 2008's consultants. Continue reading … EMILY DAVIS – The celebrity circus is trying to convince Americans to fund Planned Parenthood – and they aren't buying it. Continue reading … -- BATTLE ON BOARD – Traveler sparks heated debate over 'rarely enforced' policy on flight. Continue reading … RISKY REMEDIES – Common supplements and medications could cause liver damage. Continue reading … AMERICAN CULTURE QUIZ – Test yourself on legendary landmarks and fruitful facts. Take the quiz here … MIXED REACTIONS – Costco introduces new version of fan-favorite food court item. Continue reading … TIME CAPSULE – Woman buys back childhood home, finds sentimental item still intact in kitchen. See video … SEC. KRISTI NOEM – It's time Americans come first. See video … RICH LOWRY – Harvard battle will be Trump's signature fight of second term. See video … Tune in to the FOX NEWS RUNDOWN PODCAST for today's in-depth reporting on the news that impacts you. Check it out ... What's it looking like in your neighborhood? Continue reading… Thank you for making us your first choice in the morning! We'll see you in your inbox first thing Tuesday.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
How progressive critics paved the way for Trump's attack on judicial supremacy
One of the key axioms of politics in our, and any other, era is that nothing lasts forever. Today's seemingly new political arguments, almost certainly, will find their way into an opponent's arsenal. Evidence of that axiom is abundant. Where once Republicans were rapidly anti-Russia and anti-Putin, today they favor accommodation. Where once Democrats were suspicious of free trade, today they embrace it as part of their criticism of the president's protectionism. The most consequential of those inversions involves attitudes toward courts and judges. Where once progressive critics called the rule of law a myth and worked to expose the politics of law, today the president mobilizes that argument to accuse judges of being driven by partisan motivations. In the first Trump administration, as the president stacked the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary with MAGA-allied judges, progressives eagerly denounced those judges and what they labelled 'judicial supremacy.' They argued that the authority to interpret the Constitution was not lodged solely in the judicial branch. It was, they contended, also the work of the other branches, and the American people themselves, to say what the law is. Now, they are appalled when members of the Trump Administration take up those arguments and offer constitutional arguments of their own. Before saying more about the source of attacks on the courts and positions now being appropriated by the Trump administration, let me cite a few examples of its escalating critiques of judicial supremacy. On May 20, Secretary of State Marco Rubio delivered his own rendition of the powers and jurisdiction of the federal courts. Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the handling of the Kilmar Abrego Garcia deportation case, and the administration's reluctance to 'facilitate' his return, Rubio insisted that he does not have to obey court orders when they touch on the foreign policy of the United States. 'There is,' Rubio said, 'a division in our government between the federal branch and the judicial branch. No judge, and the judicial branch, cannot tell me or the president how to conduct foreign policy.' The Secretary of State insisted that 'No judge can tell how I have to outreach to a foreign partner or what I need to say to them. And if I do reach to that foreign partner and talk to them, I am under no obligation to share that with the judiciary branch.' Rubio is not the only one in the administration to act as if they get to define what the Constitution means or what authority courts have. Two months ago, Attorney General Pam Bondi claimed Federal District Judge James Boasberg, who, as NBC News noted 'is presiding over the case involving the administration's use of the rarely invoked Alien Enemies Act to deport what officials claim are gang members to El Salvador' was 'trying to control our entire foreign policy,' and that under the Constitution, he 'cannot do it.' And then there is the recent insistence of White House staffer Stephen Miller and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem that the president has the right to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Some might call these comments unconstitutional or anti-constitutional, but I suspect they would say that they have as much right to interpret the Constitution as the judicial branch. That is the position of conservative allies of the administration. Adrian Vermeule, for example, Professor of Law at Harvard, argues that the law 'is to a large degree what the President and the agencies say it is.' And 'The President, as a key figure in the republic, has a responsibility to interpret the Constitution in a way that promotes the common good and effective governance.' This brings us back to the fact that arguments made with the goal of advancing one political program may be flipped and turned to another purpose. It was not so long ago that progressives chaffing under the rulings of the Roberts Court called for the same kind of diffusion of the authority to interpret the Constitution that we are now seeing from the Trump Administration. In September 2020, New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie quoted with approval the following: ''The judiciary is not the sole guardian of our constitutional inheritance and interpretive authority under the Constitution has varied over time.'' In his own voice, he said: '(I)f protecting the right of the people to govern for themselves means curbing judicial power and the Supreme Court's claim to judicial supremacy, then Democrats should act without hesitation.' Twenty years earlier, two progressive constitutional law scholars reacted to an increasingly conservative Supreme Court's erosion of the Warren Court's pro-criminal defendant Miranda v. Arizona decision by calling for what they called 'shared constitutional experimentation.' As they put it, 'Because constitutional meaning is so wrapped up in broader questions of governance, constitutional interpretation should be a shared endeavor among (at the least) all the branches of the national, state, and local governments. Each branch brings to the process both a constitutional role and a set of institutional advantages….' A few years earlier, another law professor argued that 'competition and debate among the branches concerning important constitutional issues may well promote the kind of public dialogue that would lead to adoption of constructive constitutional approaches while enhancing respect for the fundamental values inherent in constitutionalism.' One final example is drawn from the work of two prominent, progressive constitutional law scholars, Yale's Robert Post and Reva Siegel. They observe that it would 'be a fundamental mistake to define constitutional law in ways that force nonjudicial actors regularly to choose between obeying constitutional law and fulfilling what they regard as their constitutional obligations.' Trump administration officials would likely agree. They might claim to be engaged in the very form of constitutional interpretation and dialogue that Bouie and others on the left have held out as a healthy and welcome. Or, perhaps more accurately, they may be owning the libs by cynically using their arguments to secure the administration's own political purposes. Whatever their motive, using the tools of progressive constitutional scholars, Trump and his colleagues are creating what Princeton's Kim Lane Scheppele labels a 'counter-constitution, an alternative constitutional reality proposed in place of a current constitution.' That is why, if the Constitution survives this moment, we should be cautious about calling for the dismantling of the courts' ultimate authority to advance the political cause of the moment. Supreme Court Justice John Marshall got it right when, more than two centuries ago, he wrote, 'It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.' All of this is a reminder that in a constitutional republic, officials, citizens, and commentators need to take a long view and think not just of what will advance their immediate interest. Prudence requires considering what things would look like if, and when, their opponents come to power. Patience and foresight are underappreciated, but indispensable virtues of constitutional government.
