AFP USA

The conservative-dominated US Supreme Court is slated to hear a case on Tuesday about whether parents have the religious right to pull their children from classes when books containing LGBTQ-related content are read or discussed.The court will review an appeal filed by parents against a Maryland public school district where, in 2022, books aimed at combating prejudice and discussing homosexuality and gender identity were introduced to the curricula of kindergarten and elementary school students. The schools had initially offered parents the chance to opt out of controversial coursework, but later retracted the option, saying: “These opt-outs were unworkable. Some schools, for example, experienced unsustainably high numbers of absent students.”Parents are suing because the opt-outs were canceled. They say the schools’ inclusive curriculum choices infringe on their Christian and Muslim faiths and First Amendment rights. The complaint alleges that the Montgomery County school board “wants to disrupt” parents’ rights to “pass those beliefs on to their young children.” School systems in some conservative states have already issued book bans or cracked down on library catalogues, with parents and conservative groups saying it is inappropriate for public spaces to host books they accuse of promoting homosexuality and inclusive progressive ideologies.Florida’s Republican governor Ron DeSantis in 2022 signed a measure widely known as the “Don’t Say Gay” law which prohibits the teaching of subjects related to sexual orientation or gender identity in primary schools.Court precedent has generally established that exposing students to ideas contrary to religion does not constitute coercion.The Justice Department of President Donald Trump’s administration supports the parents in the case, accusing the schools of “textbook interference with the free exercise of religion.”The decision of the high court, with its six conservative and three progressive judges, is expected before the current session ends in late June. 

Latin American migrants paid tribute on Monday to Pope Francis as a staunch defender of their rights who gave them much-needed encouragement on their long and dangerous journeys fleeing poverty and violence.From South America to northern Mexico, migrants joined in mourning the death of the Argentine pope at the age of 88.They expressed gratitude for Francis’s work denouncing what he called the “human tragedy” of migration and the anti-immigrant policies of US President Donald Trump.”He prayed a lot for us migrants,” Yulieth Cuellar, a 28-year-old Colombian, told AFP at a church soup kitchen in the Mexican border city of Ciudad Juarez, calling Francis a “great pope.”His prayers “touched us to the core,” added Cuellar, one of thousands of migrants left stranded in Mexico due to Trump’s anti-immigration crackdown.It was in Ciudad Juarez in 2016 that Francis climbed a ramp facing the Rio Grande river that separates the city and El Paso, Texas, laid flowers under a black cross and blessed crowds of migrants.The first Latin American pontiff was eager to see the border barrier with his own eyes, Jose Guadalupe Torres, bishop of Ciudad Juarez, recalled.When he saw it, he said: “I have seen the promised land where neither milk nor honey flows,” Torres said during a mass in honor of Francis.In one of the many tragedies that mark what the pontiff called a “humanitarian crisis,” 40 people died when a fire broke out at a migrant detention center in Ciudad Juarez in March 2023.- ‘Wonderful person’ -Thousands of miles away, in a shelter in Honduras, 35-year-old Venezuelan Ericxon Serrano remembered Pope Francis, the son of Italian migrants, as a “wonderful person.”The pontiff had asked Trump to “stop the harassment of migrants,” said Serrano, who was returning to Caracas with his wife and two young children having abandoned hope of entering the United States.Francis’s defense of migrant rights saw him clash with Trump, including when the Republican first ran for president in 2016 with a promise to build a wall to seal off Mexico.”Anyone, whoever he is, who only wants to build walls and not bridges is not a Christian,” Francis said.In a letter to US bishops in February, the pontiff called Trump’s deportation plans a “calamity” and pleaded for “the dignified treatment that all people deserve, especially the poorest and most marginalized.”His support gave hope to migrants like Marisela Guerrero, a 45-year-old Venezuelan who moved to Chile a few months ago.”His words encouraged all of us who left our countries,” she said.Priests and others involved in migrant support programs also remembered Pope Francis with fondness and respect.He was a “living saint,” says Cristina Coronado, head of the food kitchen in Ciudad Juarez, who said that Francis restored her confidence in the Church.”It’s very sad that this angel who defended migrants has passed away,” said Father Francisco Calvillo, who ran a migrant shelter in the border city at the time of the pontiff’s visit.Calvillo hopes Francis will now ask God to “send us a pope, more bishops, more priests, more lay people who are sensitive to this reality” of migration.

A delegation of Democratic lawmakers visited El Salvador on Monday in a new push to secure the release of a wrongly deported US resident at the center of a mounting political row.Kilmar Abrego Garcia was sent back to his country and remains imprisoned there despite the US Supreme Court ordering President Donald Trump’s administration to facilitate his return to the United States.”There is no reason for me to believe that our administration, the Trump administration, is doing anything to facilitate his safe return home, and that is simply unacceptable,” congresswoman Yassamin Ansari told reporters after meeting US embassy officials.”It isn’t just about Kilmar. It is the fact that our government is relentlessly going after any immigrant that’s trying to come to the United States or is in the United States without any regard for due process,” the Arizona representative said.Ansari was accompanied by fellow US House Democrats Robert Garcia, Maxwell Frost and Maxine Dexter.Frost said there was “zero indication” that the Trump administration was trying to bring Abrego Garcia back.”But we’ve got to be clear — this isn’t just about him. This is also about every single person in the United States. The constitution applies to all people in our country. Due process applies to all people in our country,” the Florida representative added.Frost said that Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele’s administration had denied a request for the group of US lawmakers to meet with the deported man.- Trump doubles down -The visit comes days after Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the state where Abrego Garcia has lived for years with his wife and child, arrived in the Central American country.Van Hollen eventually managed to meet with Abrego Garcia after multiple efforts.Trump’s administration has paid El Salvador millions of dollars to lock up nearly 300 migrants it says are criminals and gang members — including Abrego Garcia.The 29-year-old was detained in Maryland last month and expelled to El Salvador along with 238 Venezuelans and 22 fellow Salvadorans who were deported shortly after Trump invoked a rarely used wartime authority.El Salvador’s President Bukele has vowed not to return Abrego Garcia to the United States, but on Sunday proposed to Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro to exchange his countrymen for “political prisoners” in Venezuela.Maduro responded on Monday in his weekly address by calling Bukele a “systematic and serial violator of human rights” and demanding the Venezuelans’ “unconditional release.”The Trump administration admitted that Abrego Garcia was deported due to an “administrative error,” and the Supreme Court ruled that the government must “facilitate” his return.But Trump has since doubled down, insisting Abrego Garcia is in fact a gang member.Bukele, who was hosted at the White House last week, said he did not have the power to return Abrego Garcia.The migrant’s supporters note he had protected legal status and no criminal conviction in the United States.”My parents fled an authoritarian regime in Iran where people were ‘disappeared’ — I refuse to sit back and watch it happen here,” Ansari said in a statement.”What happened to Kilmar Abrego Garcia is not just one family’s nightmare — it is a constitutional crisis that should outrage every single one of us,” said Dexter, a congresswoman from Oregon.Abrego Garcia told Van Hollen that he was initially imprisoned at the Terrorism Confinement Center, a mega-prison for gang members, but was later transferred to a jail in the western department of Santa Ana.

The US Justice Department on Monday announced it was charging 27 people accused of being connected to Venezuelan drug gang Tren de Aragua with an array of serious crimes, including drug conspiracy, sex trafficking and murder.Acting US Attorney for New York’s Southern District Matthew Podolsky said those charged included alleged members, former members, and associates of Tren de Aragua,” a gang designated by US President Donald Trump as a “foreign terrorist organization.”Of the 27 defendants, 21 were in federal custody and five more were arrested Sunday and Monday in New York and other jurisdictions, the statement said.The charges include murder, shootings, human trafficking of women into sex work, extortion and drug trafficking, the department said.Tren de Aragua became a high-profile target of law enforcement under the Trump administration after the president declared the group a “terrorist” organization and invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, saying the United States was facing an “invasion.”Since then, Trump has sent two planeloads of alleged members to a prison in El Salvador on March 15 — a case that led to a standoff with US courts. Attorneys for several of the deported Venezuelans have said that their clients were not members of Tren de Aragua, had committed no crimes and were targeted largely on the basis of their tattoos.Despite facing challenges, the US Supreme Court lifted a lower court order barring the deportations on April 7, handing Trump a long-sought political victory.The court did note, however, that the deportees must be given an opportunity to legally challenge their removal — a requirement that Trump has called unworkable.”We cannot give everyone a trial, because to do so would take, without exaggeration, 200 years,” the US president said in a social media post on Monday.

Canadians head to the polls next Monday with many expressing concern the country is at a turning point as it faces an unprecedented crisis with its US neighbor.Here is what voters told AFP was on their minds in the final weeks of campaigning between Liberal leader and Prime Minister Mark Carney and Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre.- ‘A good leader’ -“I think we need somebody to stand up to people,” said Karen Allan, a 54-year-old metal and glass artist, alluding to US President Donald Trump, but refusing to say his name aloud.Trump’s trade war has raised fears of a Canadian recession and his repeated references to annexation have sparked outrage among many voters.The Victoria, British Columbia resident believes the country is in a time of crisis and needs “a good leader.” For her, “that’s Mark Carney.”- Vote for change -Francesco Campo, a 33-year-old hairdresser in Toronto, voted Liberal in the past, but feels the country “needs a change” so will be casting his ballot for the Conservatives.He hears from clients worried about “losing work” and the effects of “things that are happening down south” in the United States.He himself is most concerned about finding affordable housing in the nation’s largest city, which has seen real estate prices soar in recent years.”I have a family of four and I need to buy them a house,” he told AFP. “I look around and homes are $1 million plus… all needing work.”- ‘Strategic voting’ -Kyle Moon, 34, a musician from the Neskantaga First Nation in northern Ontario, has always voted for the leftist New Democratic Party but this round is leaning Liberal.He is among many Canadians switching their allegiance from smaller parties to the Liberals in order to keep Poilievre’s Tories out of office.He is keenly interested in safeguarding Indigenous rights as well as guarding against Ottawa’s plans for mining in Canada’s north, which is rich in critical minerals used in the manufacturing of electronics, EV batteries and other items.”Exploiting more resources in the north could affect water supplies and a lot of nature,” he said.- What about other issues? -Montreal barista Laurie Beausoleil, 24, is disappointed that Trump has sucked up most of the oxygen and that issues such as women’s rights and discrimination are not being discussed more.”For me, the environment is really important,” she said. “We hear a lot about Trump and the economy, which is also very, very important, but it’s definitely disappointing to see that a big issue like this isn’t even addressed.”Beausoleil said she will be voting Liberal, as she believes the Conservatives are too similar to Trump and his MAGA Republicans.”I would be afraid of having a party that aligns with Trump, or that defends similar values,” she said. – ‘Stakes are higher’ -Marcus McCullough, a 38-year-old youth outreach worker with Native Friendship Centre in Victoria, is undecided.”The stakes are a bit higher this year, with everything going on,” he said, referring to Canada’s relations with the United States under Trump.He is concerned about “the rising costs of basically everything.””This is going to be the first election where I’m waiting until the final day to actually make my decision,” he said.”Everything’s evolving almost daily it seems, so I really want to give all the parties time to really explain their platform and to choose which one best represents my interests.”- ‘Historic election’ -Kendel, a 39-year-old Ottawa delivery driver and Conservative supporter who did not disclose his last name, said it was “a very historic election.”He came to Canada as an immigrant in 2007 and has struggled. “It’s been very, very difficult.”This will be his first time voting.He is eager to cast a ballot because the outcome, he said, “could be a game changer with the way that the economy is going.”After nearly a decade of Liberal rule, he said he’s hoping for a Conservative win because he feels “it’s time for a change.” 

Long known for its deep-rooted independence movement, Quebec has been embracing its identity as part of Canada with rare vigor in the face of the sharp attacks from Donald Trump.The US president’s broadsides against America’s northern neighbor, and his avowed aim of making it the 51st state, have pushed people all over the country to reconsider what being Canadian means in the 21st century — a rethinking given added impetus by fast-approaching general elections.Against expectations, Quebec — the French-speaking province that loves to set itself apart from Canada’s majority — has been among the most fervent adopters of the new patriotic sentiment.”It’s crazy, in just a few weeks I’ve evolved about a lot of things — I feel very Canadian,” Carole Potvin said as she sat drinking a coffee in a Montreal neighborhood that is a stronghold of the pro-independence Bloc Quebecois party.”We felt under threat, and to face up to the American enemy it seems clear to me that we must be united,” she added, speaking in French.The language, along with Quebec’s distinct culture and political history, has nurtured dreams of independence.The province’s most recent referendum on breaking away was held in 1995 — although until recently many hoped a new one could take place soon.For some, the weeks since Trump’s inauguration south of the border have changed everything.”I was long in favor of Quebec being independent, but I think it’s a waste of time in today’s world,” said Potvin’s partner, Pierre Choiniere.”When you’re up against the US, you have to be big and strong,” he added.- ‘Headwinds’ -The proportion of Quebecers telling pollsters they were “proud” or “very proud” to be Canadian surged from 45 percent in December 2024 to 58 percent just two months later.Those saying they were “very proud” increased even more than the overall figure — although Quebecers’ overall “proud” ratio remains the lowest in Canada.Such numbers have unsettled the Bloc Quebecois, which stands candidates for election only in the Francophone province.Until autumn it had been counting on increased support in the April 28 national election, after securing 33 seats in Canada’s parliament in 2021.The party “has never faced such strong headwinds,” said political veteran Regis Labeaume, mayor of Quebec City from 2007-2021.”It’s not easy to position yourself when Canadian solidarity is growing,” the pro-independence politician added.”Many people are going to vote tactically, not with their hearts” this time around, he said.Labeaume sees the change as resulting clearly from voters’ shock at Trump’s threats to Canadian prosperity and sovereignty.”As Quebecers and Canadians we’ve never seen war, we’ve never been afraid for our physical integrity, so that explains these threats being a huge shock,” Labeaume said.”People are flabbergasted.”Other separatists, meanwhile, are trying to see the glass as half-full.”Even when we’re facing serious threats, almost one-third of people want Quebec’s independence,” said Camille Goyette-Gingras, president of separatist federation Oui Quebec.”Our province is different, including economically, from the rest of Canada, and so we’d benefit from being able to defend ourselves,” she added.Despite such arguments, the Bloc Quebecois looks set to glean just 25 percent of the province’s vote in the coming elections, according to the latest polls.That could leave the separatists with roughly half the number of seats they won last time around — a mere five to six percent of the national result.

In his second term, Trump has tested the rule of law — a vital and fundamental pillar of American democracy — as never before.At times, he has appeared to push the country to the brink of a constitutional crisis, flirting with open defiance of the judiciary, pushing for the abolition of long-standing rights like birthright citizenship and suggesting US citizens convicted of violent crime could be shipped to jails overseas.In the process he has made strikingly personal attacks on judges whose rulings he disagreed with, while some senior White House officials have suggested those rulings can be ignored.Earlier this month, one federal judge concluded that the Trump administration’s “reckless disregard” for his order in a deportation case offered probable cause to hold the government in criminal contempt.The president — the first convicted felon to serve in the White House — has also moved to settle scores with major law firms who have crossed swords with him in the past.By executive order he has deprived some firms of security clearances needed to consult protected information, restricted their access to certain buildings and officials, and cut them off from federal contracts. Several have pushed back with lawsuits, but around a dozen have given in, offering free representation — worth nearly $1 billion in total — for causes dear to the administration, such as cases involving police or first responders.- ‘Breathtaking’ -The government’s behavior has been “breathtaking in its audacity and lack of decorum,” according to retired federal judge John Jones — who was appointed by Republican president George W. Bush.”It’s unlike anything I have ever seen from the Justice Department,” Jones told CNN.The Trump administration is now the subject of close to 190 lawsuits — and federal judges across the country have temporarily blocked key elements of the government agenda, including anti-diversity initiatives, a pause on refugee admissions and a freeze on most federal grant spending.Some cases have already reached the conservative-dominated Supreme Court, resulting in a number of decisions — both in favor of and against the administration.At the heart of much of the wrangling between Trump and the courts is the extent to which the judiciary is able to step in on matters of national policy.Where the courts say they are exercising necessary checks and balances, the president argues that liberal judges are abusing their powers to curb his legitimate executive authority.The White House argument is in line with a conservative legal doctrine known as the “unitary executive theory” under which the president holds the sole authority over the executive branch.”My team is fantastic, doing an incredible job, however, they are being stymied at every turn by even the US Supreme Court,” Trump posted on his Truth Social platform on Monday.- ‘Lawless regimes’ -In a recent dissenting opinion on a deportation case, Sonia Sotomayor, one of the Supreme Court’s three progressive justices, issued a stark warning of the consequences when judicial review is denied or ignored. “History is no stranger to such lawless regimes,” Sotomayor wrote. “But this Nation’s system of laws is designed to prevent, not enable, their rise,” she said.The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments next month on Trump’s bid to end automatic citizenship for children born on American soil — a move that has been blocked by several federal judges.Rather than assessing the constitutionality of the move, the hearing will focus on the technical but crucial issue of whether lower courts actually have the right to order nationwide injunctions that pause the president’s policies.Clark Neily of the libertarian Cato Institute believes the Trump administration is exploiting what he views as the courts’ inability to stand their ground.”The judiciary has helped create what amounts to an accountability-free playground for govt officials who abuse their powers and violate people’s rights,” Neily wrote on X.”And wow, this administration is exploring that space like a coked-up spider monkey.”

Detained pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil missed the birth of his son on Monday after US authorities refused a temporary release, his wife said.A graduate student at New York’s Columbia University who was one of the most visible leaders of nationwide campus protests against Israel’s war in Gaza, Khalil was arrested by immigration authorities on March 8.He was ordered deported even though he was a permanent US resident through his American citizen wife, Noor Abdalla.Abdalla said that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) denied a request to release Khalil temporarily for the birth of their child.”This was a purposeful decision by ICE to make me, Mahmoud and our son suffer,” she said in a statement.”My son and I should not be navigating his first days on earth without Mahmoud. ICE and the Trump administration have stolen these precious moments from our family in an attempt to silence Mahmoud’s support for Palestinian freedom,” she said.She gave birth in New York. Khalil was transferred to the southern state of Louisiana in an apparent bid to find a judge sympathetic to President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.Trump’s advisors have accused pro-Palestinian protesters of promoting anti-Semitism and terrorism, charges the activists deny. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has invoked a law approved during the 1950s Red Scare that allows the United States to remove foreigners seen as adverse to US foreign policy.Rubio argues that US constitutional protections of free speech do not apply to foreigners and that he alone can make decisions without judicial review.Hundreds of students have seen their visas revoked, with some saying they were targeted for everything from writing opinion articles to minor arrest records.Immigration authorities last week arrested another Columbia University student active in the protests, Mohsen Mahdawi, as he attended an interview seeking to become a US citizen.

US government attorneys urged a federal judge Monday to make Google spin off its Chrome browser, arguing artificial intelligence is poised to ramp up the tech giant’s online search dominance.The Department of Justice (DOJ) made its pitch at a hearing before District Judge Amit Mehta, who is considering “remedies” after making a landmark decision last year that Google maintained an illegal monopoly in online search.”Nothing less than the future of the internet is at stake here,” Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater said prior to the start of the hearing in Washington.”If Google’s conduct is not remedied, it will control much of the internet for the next decade and not just in internet search, but in new technologies like artificial intelligence.”Google is among the tech companies investing heavily to be among the leader in AI, and is weaving the technology into search and other online offerings.Google countered in the case that the United States has gone way beyond the scope of the suit by recommending a spinoff of its widely used Chrome, and holding open the option to force a sale of its Android mobile operating system.The legal case focused on Google’s agreements with partners such as Apple and Samsung to distribute its search tools, noted Google president of global affairs Kent Walker.”The DOJ chose to push a radical interventionist agenda that would harm Americans and America’s global technology leadership,” Walker wrote in a blog post.”The DOJ’s wildly overbroad proposal goes miles beyond the Court’s decision.”The DOJ case against Google regarding its dominance in internet search was filed in 2020. Judge Mehta ruled against Google in August 2024.- Ad tech under fire -Google’s battle to protect Chrome renewed just days after a different US judge ruled this month that it wielded monopoly power in the online ad technology market, in a legal blow that could rattle the tech giant’s revenue engine.The federal government and more than a dozen US states filed the antitrust suit against Alphabet-owned Google, accusing it of acting illegally to dominate three sectors of digital advertising — publisher ad servers, advertiser tools, and ad exchanges.The vast majority of websites use Google ad software products that, combined, leave no way for publishers to escape Google’s advertising technology, the plaintiffs alleged.District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema agreed with most of that reasoning, ruling that Google built an illegal monopoly over ad software and tools used by publishers, but partially dismissed the argument related to tools used by advertisers.”Google has willfully engaged in a series of anticompetitive acts to acquire and maintain monopoly power in the publisher ad server and ad exchange markets for open-web display advertising,” Brinkema said in her ruling.The judge concluded that Google further entrenched its monopoly power with anticompetitive customer policies and by eliminating desirable product features.Online advertising is the driving engine of Google’s fortune and pays for widely used online services like Maps, Gmail, and search offered free.Money pouring into Google’s coffers also allows the Silicon Valley company to spend billions of dollars on its artificial intelligence efforts.Combined, the courtroom defeats have the potential to leave Google split up and its influence curbed.Google said it is appealing both rulings.

Oscar voters will be required to demonstrate that they have watched all the films in each category before they cast their final ballots, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced Monday.The new rule, which addresses a longstanding concern that voters are skipping some films, will apply for the next Oscars ceremony in March 2026, the Academy said in a statement.The Academy previously operated under an honor system that voters would see every Oscar-nominated film before casting their ballots.However, with the number of nominees growing in recent years, some voters have admitted not fully fulfilling that duty.Under the new system, Academy members will be tracked on the organization’s voters-only streaming platform to make sure they have watched each film.For movies seen elsewhere, such as in cinemas or at festival screenings, voters will be required to “fill out a form” vouching for when and where it was watched, according to the Hollywood Reporter.For the Best Picture category alone, which has 10 nominated films, competing studios traditionally host glitzy events to woo voters during their awards campaigns, with parties, screenings and festival showings, sometimes followed by Q&A sessions with the stars and filmmakers.The Academy also weighed in on a controversy that arose during the last voting season, which was marred by questions about the use of artificial intelligence in movies, such as “The Brutalist” and “Emilia Perez.”In guidance issued Monday, the Academy said AI and other digital tools will “neither help nor harm the chances of achieving a nomination.” The new rule clarifies that the use of technology is not disqualifying. “The Academy and each branch will judge the achievement, taking into account the degree to which a human was at the heart of the creative authorship when choosing which movie to award.”