Kenya police open fire on charging crowd of protesters in Nairobi
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
19 minutes ago
- The Star
Brazil police serve search warrant against former President Bolsonaro
FILE PHOTO: Former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro reacts as he speaks to the media at the Federal Senate in Brasilia, Brazil, July 17, 2025. REUTERS/Adriano Machado/File Photo BRASILIA (Reuters) -Brazil's federal police served on Friday search warrants at former President Jair Bolsonaro's home and the headquarters of his Liberal Party, Bolsonaro's press office said. Police in a statement said they had served warrants ordered by the country's Supreme Court, but did not name Bolsonaro. U.S. President Donald Trump has pressed Brazil to stop a legal case against Bolsonaro, saying that his former ally was the victim of a "witch hunt". Bolsonaro, who was friendly with Trump when they were both in office, is on trial before Brazil's Supreme Court on charges of plotting a coup to stop President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva from taking office in January 2023. (Reporting by Luciana Magalhaes; editing by Barbara Lewis and Brad Haynes)
The Star
2 hours ago
- The Star
Russian lawmaker says WhatsApp is a security threat and should prepare to leave the Russian market
A keyboard is placed in front of a displayed WhatsApp logo in this illustration taken February 21, 2023. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration MOSCOW (Reuters) -WhatsApp should prepare to leave the Russian market, a lawmaker who regulates the IT sector said on Friday, warning that the messaging app owned by Meta Platforms is very likely to be put on a list of restricted software. Russian President Vladimir Putin last month signed a law authorising the development of a state-backed messaging app integrated with government services, as Moscow strives to reduce its dependence on platforms like WhatsApp and Telegram. Anton Gorelkin, deputy head of the lower house of parliament's information technology committee, said in a statement on Telegram that the state-backed app, MAX, could gain market share should WhatsApp, used by 68% of Russians each day, leave. "It's time for WhatsApp to prepare to leave the Russian market," Gorelkin said, noting that Meta is designated as an extremist organisation in Russia. The company's Facebook and Instagram social media platforms have been banned in Russia since 2022 when Moscow sent tens of thousands of troops into Ukraine. Meta did not immediately respond to a request for comment. NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT Anton Nemkin, a member of the parliament's IT committee, said WhatsApp's fate in Russia was predetermined. "The presence of such a service in Russia's digital space is, in fact, a legal breach of national security," the TASS news agency quoted Nemkin as saying. Asked if WhatsApp might leave Russia, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said all services must abide by Russian law. Russia has long sought to establish what it calls digital sovereignty by promoting home-grown services. Its push to replace foreign tech platforms became more urgent as some Western companies pulled out of the Russian market after 2022. The Kremlin this week published a list of instructions from Putin, including an order to introduce additional restrictions on the use in Russia of software, including communication services, produced in so-called "unfriendly countries" that have imposed sanctions against Russia. Putin gave a deadline of September 1. Gorelkin, referring to Putin's order, said WhatsApp was likely to be among those communication services restricted. Gorelkin said he expected Telegram, founded by Russian-born Pavel Durov, to avoid being banned, provided it complies with Russian law. Telegram has started the procedure for creating a Russian legal entity, according to an update from state communications regulator Roskomnadzor this week. (Reporting by Reuters; Writing by Alexander MarrowEditing by Andrew Osborn and Elaine Hardcastle)
The Star
2 hours ago
- The Star
US judge weighs putting new block on Trump's birthright citizenship order
FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to the media, after the U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow to the power of federal judges by restricting their ability to grant broad legal relief in cases as the justices acted in a legal fight over President Donald Trump's bid to limit birthright citizenship, in the Press Briefing Room at the White House in Washington D.C., June 27, 2025. REUTERS/Ken Cedeno/File Photo BOSTON (Reuters) -A federal judge on Friday could deal another blow to President Donald Trump's attempts to limit birthright citizenship, even though a U.S. Supreme Court decision last month made it more difficult for lower courts to block White House directives. A group of Democratic attorneys general from 18 states and the District of Columbia will urge U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin at a hearing in Boston at 10 a.m. ET Friday to maintain an injunction he imposed in February that blocked Trump's executive order nationwide. The order directs U.S. agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States after February 19 if neither their mother nor father is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. The states' case is back in Sorokin's courtroom so he can assess the impact of the Supreme Court's landmark June 27th decision. In that 6-3 ruling authored by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the court directed lower court judges like Sorokin that had blocked Trump's policy to reconsider the scope of their orders. Rather than address the legality of Trump's executive order, the justices used the case to discourage nationwide, or 'universal,' injunctions — in which a single district court judge can block enforcement of a federal policy across the country. COMPLETE RELIEF But the court raised the possibility that universal injunctions are still permissible in certain circumstances, including class actions, in which similarly situated people sue as a group, or if they are the only way to provide "complete relief" to litigants in a particular lawsuit. Friday's hearing will shed light on how lower courts plan to address what providing complete relief entails, said George Washington University law professor Paul Schiff Berman. "One of the questions theSupreme Court left open in its nationwide injunction decision is whether states can assert claims on behalf of their citizens and, if so, whether a large-scale injunction would then be necessary to vindicatethe rights of large numbers of citizens from large numbers of states," Berman said. Spokespersons for the White House and the attorneys general did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A ruling from Sorokin, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, in favor of the states would be the second blow to Trump's executive order this month. On July 10 at a hearing in New Hampshire, U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante, an appointee of Republican president George W. Bush, issued a nationwide injunction blocking Trump's order after he found that children whose citizenship status would be threatened by it could pursue their lawsuit as a class action. The Democratic-led states, backed by immigrant rights groups, argue the White House directive violated a right enshrined in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment that guarantees that virtually anyone born in the United States is a citizen. They have argued that, if the executive order is allowed to take effect, it would wreak havoc on the administration of federal benefits programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program by making it difficult to verify eligibility. They also argue that, because children often move across state lines or are born outside their parents' state of residence, a "patchwork" of injunctions would be unworkable. "Families are likely to be confused if federal benefits eligibility — let alone U.S. citizenship — differs by State," the states wrote in a July 15 court filing. They have urged Sorokin to double down on his February injunction, saying in the court filing that the Supreme Court decision has no bearing on the case before him. "This Court correctly remedied the States' injuries via a nationwide injunction, based on the same complete-relief principle that the Supreme Court recently recognized and endorsed," the brief argued. The Justice Department has countered that Sorokin's injunction from February was "clearly overbroad and inappropriate." In a July 8 court filing, the department argued that individuals are best situated to litigate their own citizenship status. (Reporting by Jan Wolfe; Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Cynthia Osterman)
