The judgment, issued on Wednesday, removes a policy that had barred ICRC access to Palestinian detainees for more than two years. The restriction was introduced after Israel accused the humanitarian organization of failing to secure access to hostages held in Gaza by Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups following the attack.

The court found that the government had not adequately justified maintaining a blanket prohibition on prison visits, opening the way for the potential resumption of ICRC monitoring activities inside Israeli detention facilities.

The ICRC welcomed the ruling and said it was prepared to restart visits immediately. In a statement issued Wednesday evening, the organization said it was continuing discussions with Israeli authorities to resume detention-related operations as soon as possible.

The agency reiterated that access to detainees, including the ability to conduct private interviews, is an obligation under international humanitarian law.
Israel suspended ICRC visits to security-related prisoners shortly after the October 2023 attack, arguing that the organization had been unable to gain access to Israeli hostages held in Gaza.

The restrictions remained in force even after the return of the last hostages in October 2025.
The ruling comes amid sustained scrutiny of detention conditions in Israeli prisons. Human rights organizations, including several Israeli groups, have reported worsening conditions for Palestinian detainees, citing allegations of mistreatment, inadequate medical care and violence inside detention facilities.

The Prisoners Club, a leading Palestinian prisoners’ rights organization, said the court’s decision would have limited practical impact unless visits resume promptly. The group’s head, Abdullah Al-Zaghari, argued that the judgment should not obscure broader concerns regarding the role of Israeli judicial institutions in policies affecting Palestinian detainees.

The decision marks a significant legal setback for the government’s detention policy and could increase pressure on authorities to restore independent humanitarian monitoring of Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli custody.

Speaking at a legal conference in Eilat, Baharav-Miara said a “race has begun to eliminate democratic institutions” as parliament considers measures to split the attorney general’s authority and expand the powers of National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir.

She also criticized what she described as growing government disregard for court rulings, including delays in implementing a Supreme Court decision requiring military conscription of ultra-Orthodox Jewish men.

Voting rights advocates and Democratic organizers in Alabama are intensifying grassroots mobilization efforts following a U.S. Supreme Court decision that has reshaped the political landscape surrounding congressional representation and electoral participation in the state.

At a rally in Montgomery, civil rights leaders, elected officials and longtime activists linked the court’s recent decision in the Callais case to broader concerns about voting access and minority representation in the American South. Organizers framed the event as both a response to the ruling and a continuation of civil rights activism rooted in Alabama’s history.

LaTosha Brown, co-founder of Black Voters Matter and one of the rally’s organizers, said voting rights advocates viewed the court’s action as a setback for decades-long efforts to expand Black political participation in the state.

“We have done so much work over the years in this state to make sure that there is a vibrant electorate, and we’ve been able to make some progress because of the representation we’ve gained,” Brown said during remarks at the rally. “The supreme court is undermining all those folks who fought and gave their lives in the voting rights movement.”

The comments came as advocacy groups and Democratic officials assessed the implications of the Supreme Court’s handling of the Callais decision, which has become a focal point in ongoing disputes over congressional district boundaries and minority voting strength in Alabama.The state has been at the center of repeated legal challenges over redistricting since the 2020 U.S. census.

Civil rights organizations and voting rights advocates have argued in federal court that district maps diluted Black voting power in a state where African Americans account for a substantial share of the population. Republican state officials have defended the maps as legally compliant and politically neutral.The dispute has carried national political significance because Alabama’s congressional boundaries could influence the balance of representation in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Redistricting litigation across several Southern states has also become a broader test of the continued application of the federal Voting Rights Act.Speakers at the Montgomery rally repeatedly referenced the history of the civil rights movement in Alabama, particularly the campaigns in Selma and Montgomery that helped lead to passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Organizers emphasized the symbolic importance of continuing political organizing in a state that remains central to debates over voting access and racial representation.Attendees included veteran civil rights activists as well as younger organizers involved in voter outreach campaigns. Participants carried signs and addressed the crowd with speeches focused on electoral participation, district representation and community engagement ahead of upcoming elections.

Brown said organizers were increasingly relying on localized voter engagement strategies rather than national political infrastructure. According to Brown and other activists, recent legal developments reinforced the importance of sustained organizing in communities that receive limited national campaign attention.

Jackson, another organizer involved in the effort, said grassroots networks were returning to long-established organizing methods that prioritize direct voter contact and community-level engagement. He said volunteers were focusing on door-to-door outreach, voter registration efforts and maintaining a presence in neighborhoods often overlooked during election cycles.

The strategy reflects a broader shift among some voting rights organizations toward permanent local organizing operations rather than short-term election mobilization campaigns. Organizers at the rally argued that continued legal uncertainty surrounding district maps and voting regulations had increased the need for year-round engagement.

Representative Terri Sewell, who attended the event, said the public response to the court decision appeared to be generating increased political engagement among Democratic voters and civil rights supporters.Sewell said the turnout and atmosphere at the rally demonstrated heightened motivation among activists and community members.

“Instead of bemoaning the decision, people have become energized,” she said. “I expect more people to go to the polls. I expect a greater showing in November and a bigger victory for the Democrats.”Sewell has been one of Alabama’s most prominent Democratic voices on voting rights issues in Congress.

Her district includes Selma, a city closely associated with the 1965 voting rights marches that culminated in violent confrontations on the Edmund Pettus Bridge during what became known as Bloody Sunday.The historical connection to Selma remained a recurring theme throughout the Montgomery gathering.

Organizers and speakers linked current legal disputes over representation to earlier struggles over voter registration and racial discrimination in the electoral system.Representative Shomari Figures also addressed concerns about the legal and political uncertainty surrounding representation in the state. Figures said elected officials intended to continue legislative work despite the challenges created by ongoing litigation and court rulings.

“We have a term to represent,” Figures said. “We go to work, continue to do everything we can to squeeze every bit of good and every bit of progress out of the time we have left.”The remarks underscored concerns among some Democratic officials and civil rights advocates that future court decisions or redistricting outcomes could alter the state’s political balance and affect minority representation in Congress.

The event also highlighted the continuing involvement of veteran civil rights activists who participated in the original voting rights campaigns of the 1960s. Among them was Reverend Benny Tucker, who was beaten on the Edmund Pettus Bridge during the Bloody Sunday march in Selma and continues to live in the city.Tucker addressed rally participants with a message centered on sustained civic participation and continued activism. “Keep marching,” he said.

“Our voice is going to be heard.”Civil rights organizations involved in the rally said they plan to continue voter registration drives, community outreach operations and public advocacy campaigns throughout the election cycle as legal disputes over representation and voting rights continue in Alabama and other Southern states.

The dispute intensified after two ultra-Orthodox factions withdrew support from Netanyahu’s coalition earlier this month, leaving the government without a parliamentary majority and triggering an initial vote on Wednesday to dissolve the Knesset, Israel’s parliament.

The political crisis centers on efforts to pass legislation preserving military draft exemptions for ultra-Orthodox seminary students, a decades-old arrangement that has become increasingly unpopular after more than two years of regional conflict and extended reserve duty for many Israelis.

Netanyahu is attempting to advance a bill that would formalize the exemptions and satisfy his religious coalition partners, but opposition within his own bloc has cast doubt over its chances of passage.

Deputy Foreign Minister Sharren Haskel said she was among several coalition lawmakers unwilling to support the legislation, describing demands by ultra-Orthodox parties as unfair during wartime.
“The ultra-Orthodox are trying to extort us. It’s immoral. It’s not fair,” Haskel said after Wednesday’s parliamentary vote, where she wore her military uniform to underscore her opposition.

Analysts say Netanyahu’s dependence on ultra-Orthodox parties, which currently hold 18 seats in the 120-member Knesset, has long helped him maintain political stability despite corruption allegations, repeated elections and regional conflicts.

“He made a promise to his most loyal allies in the coalition, and he could not deliver,” said Shmuel Rosner, referring to Netanyahu’s pledge to protect the exemptions system.

Ultra-Orthodox lawmaker Yitzhak Pindrus said his faction would not return to the coalition without legislation guaranteeing continued exemptions.
“We need the draft bill,” Pindrus said.

The political standoff reflects broader tensions within Israeli society over military service obligations. Most Jewish Israeli men are required to complete nearly three years of mandatory military service followed by reserve duty, while women generally serve two years.
Roughly 13,000 ultra-Orthodox men reach conscription age annually, but fewer than 10% enlist, according to Israeli parliamentary data.

The issue has become more politically sensitive as Israel maintains military operations in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria while also confronting heightened tensions with Iran, stretching reserve forces and intensifying public frustration over unequal service burdens.

Israel’s Supreme Court ruled in 2017 that the longstanding exemptions lacked legal basis, but successive governments delayed implementing changes.

Researchers say Netanyahu now faces a narrowing political path: preserving ties with ultra-Orthodox parties risks alienating broader conservative voters frustrated by military disparities, while abandoning the exemptions could permanently fracture his governing alliance.

Political observers say the coalition’s collapse could move elections forward from October to September, potentially ending one of the most durable governing partnerships in Israeli politics.

The International Criminal Court last week unsealed an arrest warrant accusing Dela Rosa, Duterte and other alleged co-perpetrators of committing the “crime against humanity of murder” during the Philippines’ crackdown on illegal drugs.

Dela Rosa, who briefly remained inside the Philippine Senate last week while contesting the warrant, petitioned the Supreme Court to block government efforts to detain him.

In a filing dated May 16, Solicitor-General Darlene Berberabe argued that Dela Rosa had effectively placed himself “outside the protection of the law” and urged the court to dismiss his petition.

“Until he submits himself to lawful authorities, he must be deemed a fugitive from justice and should not be allowed to seek any relief from the courts,” the filing said.

Authorities said Dela Rosa quietly left the Senate building on Thursday, and his whereabouts were not immediately known.

The Philippine justice department said on Friday that authorities would defer serving the ICC warrant until the Supreme Court ruled on Dela Rosa’s petition, unless officials determined he was attempting to leave the country.

The Supreme Court did not immediately comment on the government filing.

Dela Rosa has argued the ICC warrant is invalid because the Philippines withdrew in 2019 from the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the court.
Berberabe said in the filing that withdrawal from the treaty “does not relieve a state party from cooperating in proceedings already initiated before the ICC.”

The ICC prosecutor opened a preliminary examination into the Philippines’ anti-drug campaign in 2018 after rights groups and activists alleged widespread extrajudicial killings during Duterte’s presidency.
Thousands of people, including suspected drug users and low-level dealers, were killed during the campaign launched after Duterte took office in 2016, according to human rights organizations.

Duterte was arrested in March last year and transferred to The Hague, where he remains in detention awaiting trial before the ICC.

Dela Rosa served as chief of the Philippine National Police from 2016 to 2018 before entering politics. He was elected to the Senate in 2019 and retained his seat in the 2025 midterm elections.

The judiciary’s Mizan Online website said Erfan Kiani was hanged after the country’s Supreme Court upheld his death sentence, describing him as one of the “main operatives” involved in an operation allegedly directed by Mossad during unrest in the central province of Isfahan in January.

Authorities accused Kiani of participating in sabotage and violent attacks during the protests, which officials say were orchestrated by foreign-backed groups seeking to destabilize the country.

According to the judiciary, he was charged with “destruction of public and private property, arson, possession and use of Molotov cocktails, carrying a bladed weapon, blocking vehicle routes, attacking officers, and creating fear and panic among citizens.”Iranian officials said the activities formed part of a “mission assigned by Mossad,” Israel’s foreign intelligence agency, although no independent evidence was publicly presented.

The execution follows the hanging on Thursday of another man convicted of membership in a banned opposition organization, continuing a broader wave of capital punishment linked to unrest and national security charges.Iran has sharply increased executions since the outbreak of war with Israel and the United States on Feb. 28, when U.S.-Israeli strikes triggered a wider regional conflict and heightened internal security measures across the country.

Authorities have linked January’s protests to what they describe as coordinated interference by Israel, the United States, and exiled opposition groups, including the banned People’s Mujahedin Organization of Iran.Since March 19, Iranian authorities have executed at least nine men on charges connected to those protests, according to official statements.

Human rights organizations have repeatedly criticized Iran’s use of the death penalty, particularly in cases involving political dissent, espionage accusations, and national security prosecutions.According to groups including Amnesty International, Iran is the world’s second most prolific user of capital punishment after China.

Tehran maintains that such executions are necessary to preserve national security and deter what it calls foreign-sponsored subversion during wartime conditions.

The latest case is likely to draw renewed international scrutiny over Iran’s judicial process and its handling of security-related prosecutions amid escalating regional tensions.

The remarks originated from U.S. conservative radio host Michael Savage during an episode of his show “The Savage Nation,” in which he criticized birthright citizenship in the United States and referred to countries including India and China in derogatory terms.

Trump reposted a transcript of the comments on his Truth Social platform on Thursday without adding his own remarks.

India’s foreign ministry responded strongly, with spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal saying the remarks were “obviously uninformed, inappropriate and in poor taste,” and did not reflect the longstanding relationship between the two countries.

“The remarks certainly do not reflect the reality of the India-U.S. relationship, which has long been based on mutual respect and shared interests,” Jaiswal said in a statement.

The U.S. embassy in New Delhi cited Trump as having previously described India as “a great country,” seeking to underscore the broader context of ties between the two nations.The comments come amid ongoing debate in the United States over birthright citizenship, with Trump pursuing restrictions that are currently under legal challenge in the Supreme Court.

Earlier this month, he attended a hearing on the issue in a rare presidential visit to the court.India’s main opposition Indian National Congress condemned the remarks as “extremely insulting,” urging Prime Minister Narendra Modi to formally raise the issue with Washington.

Government data show approximately 5.5 million people of Indian origin reside in the United States, forming one of the largest Asian-origin communities alongside Chinese Americans.Despite the diplomatic friction, both countries have been engaged in efforts to strengthen economic ties.

Following a period of trade tensions, including the imposition of high U.S. tariffs on Indian goods last year, New Delhi and Washington are currently working toward a trade agreement aimed at boosting bilateral commerce and avoiding further tariff escalations.

The settlement resolves claims brought by Page, a former adviser to Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, who argued in a 2020 lawsuit that he was subjected to improper monitoring by the Federal Bureau of Investigation under warrants approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Page denied any ties to Russia and was never charged with a crime. His lawsuit cited errors and omissions in surveillance applications submitted by FBI and Justice Department officials in 2016 and 2017, which sought authorization to monitor him as a suspected foreign agent.

The agreement was disclosed in a filing to the Supreme Court of the United States, where Page had appealed after lower courts dismissed his claims as untimely. The filing did not specify the financial terms, but a person familiar with the matter confirmed the $1.25 million figure.

The settlement does not extend to claims Page filed against individual former FBI officials, which remain separate.The lawsuit followed a critical report by the Justice Department’s inspector general, which identified significant flaws in the surveillance applications.

Former officials involved in approving the warrants later said they would not have done so had they been aware of the full extent of the issues, while the FBI has since implemented more than 40 corrective measures to strengthen oversight and accuracy.

The surveillance of Page constituted only a limited part of the broader inquiry into links between Trump’s campaign and Russia. That investigation, led by special counsel Robert Mueller, found that Russia interfered in the election in Trump’s favor but did not establish sufficient evidence to prove a criminal conspiracy between the campaign and Moscow.

In a related development, the Justice Department reached a separate settlement last month with Michael Flynn, agreeing to pay approximately $1.2 million.

Flynn had pleaded guilty to lying to investigators about contacts with a Russian diplomat before later receiving a presidential pardon.

The case centers on Trump’s order, signed after his return to the White House, which would deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born on American soil to parents residing illegally or temporarily in the country.

Federal courts previously halted the measure, citing the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to nearly all individuals born in the United States.

The administration argues that the 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, was intended to secure citizenship rights for formerly enslaved people and does not extend to children of undocumented migrants or temporary visa holders.

In filings, Solicitor General John Sauer contended that eligibility for citizenship requires both birth in the United States and being “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” a phrase the administration interprets narrowly.

Lower courts rejected that interpretation, relying on longstanding precedent, including the 1898 Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed citizenship for a U.S.-born individual of foreign parents.Legal scholars cited in the proceedings said the court’s historical reliance on precedent may weigh against the administration’s position.

Steven Schwinn, a law professor at the University of Illinois Chicago, said the court has traditionally looked to historical practice in constitutional interpretation.Trump confirmed he would attend the hearing, marking a rare instance of a sitting president observing oral arguments in a case involving their own administration.

While presidents have historically maintained distance from court proceedings, Trump has previously attended judicial ceremonies, including the 2017 investiture of Justice Neil Gorsuch.

The Supreme Court currently has a 6–3 conservative majority, with three justices appointed by Trump during his first term.The administration has argued that automatic citizenship for children of undocumented migrants acts as an incentive for illegal immigration and so-called “birth tourism.”

Opponents, including the American Civil Liberties Union, said the policy would undermine constitutional protections and create uncertainty over the citizenship status of millions of Americans.

The case follows a separate setback for Trump in February, when the Supreme Court struck down much of his global tariff policy. Trump criticized that ruling and renewed his attack on judicial decisions ahead of the current hearing.

A decision on the birthright citizenship case is expected by late June or early July.

These amendments aren’t some grand conspiracy against Muslims—they’re a practical fix for a creaky system.

Across India, the 2025 amendments to the Waqf Act have stirred up a whirlwind of debate. Critics argue they’re a sneaky attempt to chip away at Muslim religious rights, fueling fears of disenfranchisement in places like Haryana—where Waqf properties pepper both city streets and rural fields—and beyond.

Some loud voices with their own agendas have turned up the volume on these claims. But if you peel back the layers, a different picture emerges. These changes aren’t about attacking faith; they’re about practical steps to modernize how Waqf properties are run, cut down on corruption, and stay true to the Islamic values of charity and justice at the heart of the Waqf system.

Let’s separate the rumors from the reality and look at what’s really happening—a push for efficiency and fairness that could benefit communities far beyond India.

One persistent misunderstanding is that Waqf administration is some untouchable religious domain, off-limits to practical reforms. Back in 1964, India’s Supreme Court put that idea to rest in a case called Tialkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj vs. State of Rajasthan. The ruling? Managing properties—whether they’re temples or Waqf holdings—is a secular job, not a spiritual one. The 2025 amendments take this to heart, aiming to streamline operations without meddling in religious freedoms.

In Haryana alone, Waqf properties include mosques, graveyards, and commercial spaces, while across India, 8.72 lakh properties cover a massive 38 lakh acres. Last year, these assets brought in just Rs. 166 crore, but the WAMSI portal estimates they could generate Rs. 12,000 crore. The amendments want to bridge that gap, channeling the profits to the poor and marginalized—exactly what Waqf is supposed to do.

Then there’s the notion that Waqf Boards are sacred institutions straight out of the Quran and Hadith, immune to any tinkering. The Kerala High Court in 1993 (Syed Fazal Pookoya Thangal vs. Union of India) cleared this up, pointing out that Waqf Boards are legal creations under the 1954 Waqf Act, designed to manage properties, not oversee religious life.

In Haryana, where mismanagement has left many Waqf assets idle, these changes tackle the problem head-on—think digitized records and stricter accountability—to live up to Islam’s call to support those in need.

The idea of adding non-Muslims to Waqf Boards—up to three out of eleven members in states like Haryana, or four out of twenty-two at the national level—has sparked accusations of religious interference. But rewind to 1965: the Allahabad High Court (Hafiz Mohamed Zafar Ahmed vs. UP Central Sunni Waqf Board) ruled that even non-Muslims can serve as Mutawallis (caretakers), since management isn’t about faith—it’s about competence.

Picture Haryana’s urban Waqf shops or rural lands: bringing in non-Muslim experts in law or administration could root out corruption without touching religious principles. Look at history—non-Muslim-led efforts like the Sachar Committee and Rangnath Misra Commission have delivered real benefits for Muslim communities. This is about professionalism, not overreach.

Some worry that mosques, madrasas, or graveyards—like those in Haryana’s Mewat region—are at risk. That’s simply not true. The amendments apply moving forward and safeguard already registered properties. ‘Waqf by User’ sites—places recognized as Waqf through long-term use—are secure, backed by Islamic teachings in Sur-e-Baqra about honoring written commitments (think Nikahnama). The 2013 rule allowing “any person” to dedicate Waqf is gone, ensuring only Muslim owners can do so, which aligns with Islamic tradition. As for Waqf-Alal-Aulad (family Waqf), the changes stop its misuse—think back to Zamindari-era land grabs—while protecting rights for women, children, widows, and orphans, reflecting Islam’s focus on compassion.

The old system was a mess. In Haryana and across India, Mutawallis often dodged audits, leaving revenue at a trickle compared to what it could be. The amendments up the fines—not jail time—to enforce transparency, swap Survey Commissioners for District Collectors with revenue know-how, and put senior officers in charge of disputes for fairness. They also open the door wider: Section 14 includes Haryana’s backward Muslims, women, and smaller sects in Waqf Board governance, making it more representative.

Wild claims—like Karnataka’s supposed ASI land grab or Haryana’s property disputes—get reined in, aligning Waqf with constitutional property rights under Article 300-A. Dropping Section 108A’s override, which the Sachar Committee flagged as problematic, means Civil and High Courts can step in, tackling a backlog that’s ballooned from 10,000 cases in 2013 to 32,000 today. In Haryana, this could unlock assets for schools or clinics, turning Waqf into a lifeline for communities.

These amendments aren’t some grand conspiracy against Muslims—they’re a practical fix for a creaky system. They stick to secular management, preserve religious purpose, and empower through better efficiency. For Haryana’s Muslims, and others across India and potentially beyond, this could turn neglected plots into engines of progress. Holding onto myths keeps things stuck; facing the facts builds a future worth believing in. Let’s go with the latter.