Why US troops are concerned about Trump's deployment
US President Donald Trump has deployed hundreds of troops to Los Angeles in response to protests against immigration raids. It's been widely considered to be an illegal deployment. Meanwhile, hotlines to support service members have been seeing an uptick in complaints and questions. What happens when those in uniform are ordered to confront the very people they swore to protect?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
an hour ago
- Al Jazeera
US judge orders release of Palestine advocate Mahmoud Khalil
A federal judge in the United States has ordered the release of Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil, who has been detained since March by immigration authorities over his involvement in Palestinian rights protests at Columbia University. The decision on Friday came from a federal court in New Jersey, where Khalil's lawyers are challenging his detention. It is separate from the legal push against his deportation that will continue to take place in immigration courts. It is unclear whether Khalil – who was a legal permanent resident – will be immediately released. He was the first known activist to be detained and have his legal immigration status revoked by the administration of President Donald Trump over involvement in student protests. His case gained national attention, especially after the authorities denied him the chance to witness the birth of his first born son last month. More to come…
Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Top court revives lawsuits against Palestinian authorities from US victims
The Supreme Court has revived long-running lawsuits against Palestinian authorities from Americans killed or wounded in attacks in Israel and the occupied West Bank. The United States Supreme Court has upheld a statute passed by Congress to facilitate lawsuits against Palestinian authorities by Americans killed or injured in attacks abroad as plaintiffs pursue monetary damages for violence years ago in Israel and the occupied West Bank. The 9-0 ruling overturned a lower court's decision that the 2019 law, the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, violated the rights of the Palestinian Authority and Palestine Liberation Organization to due process under the US Constitution. Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, who authored the ruling, said the 2019 jurisdictional law comported with due process rights enshrined in the Constitution's Fifth Amendment. 'It is permissible for the federal government to craft a narrow jurisdictional provision that ensures, as part of a broader foreign policy agenda, that Americans injured or killed by acts of terror have an adequate forum in which to vindicate their right' to compensation under a federal law known as the Anti-terrorism Act of 1990, Roberts wrote. The US government and a group of American victims and their families had appealed the lower court's decision that struck down a provision of the law. Among the plaintiffs are families who in 2015 won a $655m judgement in a civil case alleging that the Palestinian organisations were responsible for a series of shootings and bombings around Jerusalem from 2002 to 2004. They also include relatives of Ari Fuld, a Jewish settler in the Israel-occupied West Bank who was fatally stabbed by a Palestinian in 2018. Advertisement The ruling comes even as Jewish settlements on Palestinian-owned land are considered illegal under international law. 'The plaintiffs, US families who had loved ones maimed or murdered in PLO-sponsored terror attacks, have been waiting for justice for many years,' said Kent Yalowitz, a lawyer for the plaintiffs. 'I am very hopeful that the case will soon be resolved without subjecting these families to further protracted and unnecessary litigation,' Yalowitz added. Israel's ongoing war in Gaza, and now Iran, served as a backdrop to the case. Since the war in Gaza began in October 2023, more than 55,000 people have been killed and 130,000 wounded, according to Gaza's Health Ministry. Sign up for Al Jazeera Americas Coverage Newsletter US politics, Canada's multiculturalism, South America's geopolitical rise—we bring you the stories that matter. Subscribe Your subscription failed. Please try again. Please check your email to confirm your subscription By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy protected by reCAPTCHA US courts for years have grappled over whether they have jurisdiction in cases involving the Palestinian Authority and PLO for actions taken abroad. Under the language at issue in the 2019 law, the PLO and Palestinian Authority automatically 'consent' to jurisdiction if they conduct certain activities in the United States or make payments to people who attack Americans. Roberts in Friday's ruling wrote that Congress and the president enacted the jurisdictional law based on their 'considered judgment to subject the PLO and PA (Palestinian Authority) to liability in US courts as part of a comprehensive legal response to 'halt, deter and disrupt' acts of international terrorism that threaten the life and limb of American citizens'. New York-based US District Judge Jesse Furman ruled in 2022 that the law violated the due process rights of the PLO and Palestinian Authority. The New York-based 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling. President Joe Biden's administration initiated the government's appeal, which subsequently was taken up by President Donald Trump's administration. The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case on April 1.
Al Jazeera
3 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
US Supreme Court lets fuel producers challenge California emissions rules
The dispute centred on an exception granted to California on national vehicle emission standards, allowing it to set stricter rules than federal standards. The United States Supreme Court has sided with fuel producers that had opposed California's standards for vehicle emissions and electric cars under a federal air pollution law, agreeing that their legal challenge to the mandates should not have been dismissed. The justices in a 7-2 ruling on Friday overturned a lower court's decision to dismiss the lawsuit by a Valero Energy subsidiary and fuel industry groups. The lower court had concluded that the plaintiffs lacked the required legal standing to challenge a 2022 US Environmental Protection Agency decision to let California set its own regulations. 'The government generally may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court as unaffected bystanders,' conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the majority. Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the decision. The dispute centred on an exception granted to California during Democratic former President Joe Biden's administration to national vehicle emission standards set by the agency under the landmark Clean Air Act anti-pollution law. Though states and municipalities are generally preempted from enacting their own limits, Congress let the EPA waive the preemption rule to let California set certain regulations that are stricter than federal standards. The EPA's 2022 action reinstated a waiver for California to set its own tailpipe emissions limits and zero-emission vehicle mandate through 2025, reversing a 2019 decision made during Republican President Donald Trump's first administration rescinding the waiver. Advertisement Valero's Diamond Alternative Energy and related groups challenged the reinstatement of California's waiver, arguing that the decision exceeded the EPA's power under the Clean Air Act and inflicted harm on their bottom line by lowering demand for liquid fuels. The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit threw out the lawsuit in 2024, finding that the challengers lacked the necessary standing to bring their claims because there was no evidence that a ruling in their favour might affect the decisions of auto manufacturers in a way that would result in fewer electric and more combustion vehicles to be sold. Sceptical court California, the most populous US state, has received more than 100 waivers under the Clean Air Act. Sign up for Al Jazeera Americas Coverage Newsletter US politics, Canada's multiculturalism, South America's geopolitical rise—we bring you the stories that matter. Subscribe Your subscription failed. Please try again. Please check your email to confirm your subscription By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy protected by reCAPTCHA The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has taken a sceptical view towards broad authority for federal regulatory agencies and has restricted the powers of the EPA in some important rulings in recent years. In 2024, the court blocked the EPA's 'Good Neighbor' rule aimed at reducing ozone emissions that may worsen air pollution in neighbouring states. In 2023, the court hobbled the EPA's power to protect wetlands and fight water pollution. In 2022, it imposed limits on the agency's authority under the Clean Air Act to reduce coal and gas-fired power plant carbon emissions.
