Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

A three‑judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a two‑to‑one decision on Tuesday that blocks District Judge James Boasberg from moving forward with contempt hearings against the Trump administration.The case stemmed from Boasberg’s attempt to determine whether officials violated his March 15, 2025 order to turn around two deportation flights while they were airborne. The flights had carried 137 Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador under the rarely used Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 statute granting presidents broad wartime powers.In the majority opinion, Judge Neomi Rao (a Trump appointee) wrote that Boasberg’s contempt inquiry was a “clear abuse of discretion,” noting that the district court’s order did not expressly forbid the transfer of the migrants into Salvadoran custody. She emphasized that criminal contempt applies only to violations of a “clear and specific” order.Judge Justin Walker, also appointed by Trump, joined Rao, while Judge J. Michelle Childs—a Biden appointee—dissented. The split reflects the broader partisan tension surrounding the case.Critics of the deportations argued that invoking the Alien Enemies Act represented presidential overreach and that the rapid operation denied the immigrants due process, including the ability to appeal. Some detainees were later released to Venezuela in a July 2025 prisoner exchange after spending months in El Salvador’s maximum‑security Centre for Terrorism Confinement (CECOT).Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche praised the ruling on X, stating it should “finally end Judge Boasberg’s year‑long campaign against the hardworking Department attorneys doing their jobs fighting illegal immigration.”The decision underscores the judiciary’s role in checking executive immigration actions, especially when emergency court orders intersect with national‑security‑related statutes. It also signals that future attempts to pursue contempt for alleged violations of ambiguous orders may face heightened scrutiny.

Eighteen Senegalese football supporters, who were convicted and sentenced to prison terms ranging from three to 12 months for a pitch invasion during the chaotic Africa Cup of Nations final in Rabat, have denied any wrongdoing.A Moroccan court in February sentenced the fans on charges of hooliganism, with prosecutors seeking stiffer penalties in the appeals court in Rabat. However, the initial sentences were upheld on Monday.The Senegalese fans argued that they had been forced onto the pitch because of a surging crowd or to avoid being spat upon and projectiles thrown towards them. They claimed it was not to protest against a refereeing decision at the end of the contentious AFCON final on January 18, which Senegal won 1-0.The Confederation of African Football (CAF) reversed Senegal’s win last month, awarding the title to Morocco two months after the final. The Senegalese Football Federation immediately instructed its lawyers to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).Defence lawyer Naima El Guellaf asked on Monday that videos of the incidents be shown to verify the identities of the 18 Senegalese in court, a move rejected by the prosecution.

Pope Leo issued a clear message to the international community, calling on all world leaders to reject war and focus on peaceful negotiations. In his appeal, the pontiff emphasized the moral and practical necessity of resolving disputes through dialogue rather than violence, urging governments to pursue diplomatic pathways for lasting stability.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has granted the Trump administration a brief reprieve, extending the pause on the White House ballroom construction until April 17. The move allows officials to pursue a potential Supreme Court review of a lower‑court injunction that barred further work. In a split decision, Judges Patricia Millett and Bradley Garcia formed the majority, while Trump‑appointed Judge Neomi Rao dissented. The majority questioned the administration’s repeated claim that the construction pause creates a national‑security risk, noting that the original order already exempts work necessary for the White House’s safety. Judge Richard Leon, appointed by former President George W. Bush, had issued the March 31 injunction, stating that a project of this magnitude requires explicit Congressional authorization. Leon’s order included a 14‑day stay to let the administration appeal, a stay that was set to expire this week before the appeals court’s extension. The court highlighted that the administration has not demonstrated how the injunction interferes with any existing security plans. As the majority wrote, “Defendants have not, on this record, explained how, if at all, the injunction interferes with their existing plans for safety and security.” Furthermore, the judges pointed out that the ballroom—spanning roughly 90,000 sq ft (8,360 m²)—was always projected to be a multi‑year undertaking. Planning documents estimate completion nearly three years after groundbreaking, raising doubts about the claim that a short‑term delay poses additional harm. In her dissent, Judge Rao argued that the majority’s demand for further fact‑finding would cause “irreparable injury” by halting construction, asserting that the aesthetic concerns raised by critics are outweighed by the administration’s interests. The controversy stems from the decision to demolish the historic East Wing, a structure dating back to 1902, to make room for the new ballroom. Critics, including the National Trust for Historic Preservation, contend the demolition was executed without notice and exceeds presidential authority, prompting a lawsuit that led to Leon’s injunction. While the appeals court has sent the case back to the district court for clarification on factual disputes and the scope of the security exemption, the extension effectively keeps the construction site active for another week, maintaining the political flashpoint surrounding one of the most transformative building projects on the nation’s capital in recent memory.

A sharp political row has ignited between the central government in Madrid and the Basque regional authorities over a request to display Picasso’s Guernica at the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao from 1 October to 30 June, coinciding with the 90th anniversary of the town’s devastating aerial attack.The masterpiece has been housed in Madrid’s Reina Sofía museum since 1992, and previous appeals to relocate it to the Basque Country have been consistently rejected.The latest demand has seen Isabel Díaz Ayuso, the outspoken conservative president of the Community of Madrid, and Aitor Esteban, leader of the Basque nationalist party, exchange barbed remarks, each accusing the other of a “provincial” outlook.Ayuso argued that moving the painting “doesn’t make sense” and quipped that, if origin mattered, “all of Picasso’s works should be sent to Málaga,” the artist’s birthplace. She also warned that the Reina Sofía fears the relocation could damage the delicate canvas.Esteban shot back, suggesting that Ayuso’s notion of national identity was reduced to “drinking beer on a terrace bar,” a jab at her stance on keeping Madrid’s bars open during the pandemic.Basque president Imanol Pradales challenged the Spanish government’s resolve, asking whether it could muster the courage to move Guernica after having “dragged Franco out of his tomb.” He framed the decision as a test of political will.The Basque administration proposes to exhibit the work at the Guggenheim for eight months, framing the display as a tribute to the victims of the 1937 bombing of the town of Guernica.The black‑and‑white canvas captures the horror of the attack carried out by the German Condor Legion and the Italian air force on 26 April 1937, an early example of strategic aerial bombardment of civilians during the Spanish Civil War.Casualty estimates for the raid vary widely—from as few as 126 to as many as 1,654 dead—yet the painting has become an enduring global symbol of the atrocities of war.After its debut at the 1937 Paris International Exposition, Guernica toured Europe and the United States. Picasso, who opposed its return to Spain under Franco’s dictatorship, later allowed it to reside at New York’s Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) for several decades.Art historian Francisco Chaparro cautioned that, while the Spanish government cannot entirely rule out a move, the risk of damage must outweigh any political motivations. He likened the situation to the Mona Lisa’s permanent stay at the Louvre and Velázquez’s *Las Meninas* at the Prado, noting that Guernica has been “rolled and unrolled on numerous occasions.”Artist José Manuel Ballester reminded observers that Picasso himself had envisioned the painting hanging in the Prado, a position he never assumed during the civil war.In 2000, the Reina Sofía rejected a request from MoMA to loan Guernica, declaring that the “great icon of our museum must remain, without exception, separate from the policy on lending works to other museums.”Note: The article was amended on 7 April 2026 to include the German Condor Legion alongside the Italian air force in describing the 1937 bombing.

A federal appeals court has ruled that New Jersey gaming regulators cannot prevent Kalshi from allowing people in the state to use its prediction market to place financial bets on the outcome of sporting events. The decision marks a significant victory for Kalshi and similar prediction market operators.The three-judge panel of the Philadelphia-based third US circuit court of appeals ruled 2-1, finding that the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has exclusive jurisdiction over the sports-related event contracts that Kalshi allows people to trade on its platform.This ruling is a major setback for states like New Jersey, which had argued that firms like Kalshi were operating without required state licenses, in violation of gaming laws, including bans on wagers by those under 21. New Jersey had sent Kalshi a cease-and-desist letter last year, stating that its listing of sports-related event contracts on its platform violated state gambling laws.Kalshi had sued the state, arguing that its event contracts qualify as “swaps”, a type of derivative contract, that under the Commodity Exchange Act can only be regulated by the CFTC, which had granted the company a license to operate a designated contract market (DCM).The ruling was in line with the position advanced by the CFTC under Donald Trump’s administration. The regulator sued Arizona, Connecticut, and Illinois last week to prevent them from pursuing what it called unlawful efforts to regulate prediction markets.“Congress gave the CFTC exclusive jurisdiction over trades on DCMs, and this decision affirms the goals of Congress,” said Brooke Nethercott, a CFTC spokesperson.However, US circuit judge Jane Richards Roth dissented, saying Kalshi was facilitating gambling and that its “offerings were virtually indistinguishable from the betting products available on online sportsbooks, such as DraftKings and FanDuel”.The New Jersey attorney general's office said it was evaluating its options, including potentially asking the full third circuit to rehear the case.

An appellate panel in Colorado has ordered a new sentencing hearing for former Mesa County clerk Tina Peters, whose original nine‑year prison term was overturned on procedural grounds. The three‑judge panel ruled that the trial court improperly considered Peters's personal belief in alleged 2020 election fraud when determining her punishment, rendering the sentence invalid. While the conviction for assisting an out‑of‑state actor in accessing and copying Mesa County voting‑machine data remains intact, the court emphasized that the sentence, not the guilt, was flawed. "The trial court’s comments about Peters’s belief in the existence of 2020 election fraud went beyond relevant considerations for her sentencing," the opinion read. Judge Matthew Barrett, who previously described Peters as a “charlatan” peddling “snake‑oil” claims, was specifically cited for remarks that the appeals court deemed extraneous to the sentencing decision. Peters was found guilty in August 2024 of facilitating the theft of election‑system files for a person linked to efforts to overturn former President Donald Trump's 2020 loss. The stolen copies were later disseminated on social media, fueling the broader election‑denial movement. In December, President Trump issued a pardon for Peters. However, the appellate court clarified that a presidential pardon cannot override state convictions, stating, "We have found no instance where the presidential pardon power has been stretched in such a way as to invade an individual state’s sovereignty." Governor Jared Polis of Colorado has hinted at the possibility of clemency, though no formal action has been announced. The case continues to serve as a rallying point for Trump supporters who claim the 2020 election was riddled with fraud, a narrative that persists despite the former president’s re‑election in 2024 and ongoing legal scrutiny.

The Paris Appeals Court on Wednesday rejected Tunisia's request to extradite Halima Ben Ali, the daughter of the late former president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, who faces accusations of laundering assets acquired during her father's 1987‑2011 rule.The ruling was anchored in Tunisia's failure to provide guarantees of an independent and impartial trial, a prerequisite under French and international extradition standards.Halima Ben Ali was detained in September 2025 at Tunisia's behest as she prepared to board a flight from Paris to Dubai. Authorities allege she participated in the laundering of wealth amassed under her father's regime.Her lawyer, Samia Maktouf, warned that sending her back would be tantamount to “a death sentence.” After the verdict, Maktouf described the decision as “an immense relief” and affirmed that justice had been served in accordance with the law.Tunisian prosecutors say the alleged financial crimes could carry a sentence of up to 20 years in prison, underscoring the broader push to recover misappropriated assets and hold the Ben Ali family accountable more than a decade after the Arab Spring uprisings.The case revives debate over the legacy of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, who was ousted in 2011, fled to Saudi Arabia, died in exile in 2019, and was sentenced in absentia to life imprisonment by a Tunisian court.While the French decision may strain diplomatic ties, it also signals Paris' commitment to uphold procedural safeguards when handling extradition requests linked to politically sensitive cases.

Ethiopian women's rights activists are facing a rising tide of digital violence, including online threats, doxing, and deepfake abuse, forcing some to flee the country. Yordanos Bezabih, an Ethiopian women's rights activist, had faced online threats for years, including acid attacks, gang-rape, and death. However, in 2025, the threats became more menacing, with an anonymous Telegram group organizing an effort to track down her location.The group shared deepfakes of her – nude images and videos. A stranger started filming her in the streets, calling her by her social media handle. Thieves broke into her house and stole her laptop. Soon after, her Telegram account was hacked, and her private photos and messages were circulated on social media. The perpetrators later circulated her address, demanding she be found and “executed”.In August, Bezabih left Ethiopia on a fellowship for human rights defenders. She has not returned since; it is too dangerous. “I have been forced to remain outside the country in order to protect my safety and continue my work,” she says.Bezabih is one of a small but growing number of feminists and women’s rights defenders who have left Ethiopia over the past two years, as online violence has become all-pervasive and uncontrolled. Three years after Facebook was accused of allowing hate speech to spread unchecked in Ethiopia, amid genocidal violence against ethnic Tigrayans during the civil war – claims rejected by Meta – social media inciters in Ethiopia have found a new target: women online.Research by the Centre for Information Resilience (CIR) bears out the scale of online gendered abuse in Ethiopia. Its 2024 report, Silence, Shamed and Threatened, found that technology-facilitated gender-based violence (TFGBV) has become “normalized to the point of invisibility” and is a daily occurrence with severe offline impacts, including psychological harm, physical assault, and arrests.Activists say the government and social media platforms are not doing enough to protect them. “I don’t think the government is much concerned about online harassment. It is barely a government agenda,” says Befekadu Hailu, an Ethiopian civil society leader and former director of Ethiopia’s Centre for the Advancement of Rights and Democracy.Bezabih says the online platforms that enable the violence also do little about it. “Even though they claim to have all these community guidelines, tech platforms never respond to reports, claims or even appeals.”