A New Mexico court has ordered Meta to pay $567 million into a teen mental health fund, ruling that Facebook and Instagram contributed to harming young users and created a public nuisance.

The court also directed Meta to implement stronger youth safety measures, including limits on teen usage, stricter controls on adult interactions with minors, notification restrictions, and safeguards against inappropriate AI chatbot interactions.

The landmark ruling could influence similar lawsuits across the United States, where dozens of states and more than 1,300 school districts are pursuing legal action against social media companies over alleged harm to children.

Meta Hit With $567 Million Penalty Over Teen Mental Health | Facebook & Instagram Under Fire

A US federal judge has ruled that the Trump administration's policy freezing green card applications from 75 countries was unlawful, dealing a significant setback to President Donald Trump's immigration agenda.

The ruling, issued by US District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington, D.C., found that the State Department's "public charge" policy exceeded the authority granted under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Introduced earlier this year by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the policy had largely halted immigrant visa processing for applicants from countries including Nigeria, Colombia, Russia, and Egypt.

The policy mainly affected family-sponsored immigrant visa applicants and some employment-based green card applicants. While the administration argued that the measure was intended to prevent immigrants from relying on public assistance, critics said it effectively blocked applications without proper individual review.

US Judge Blocks Trump Green Card Freeze | Major Setback for Trump's Immigration Policy

Once the Uniform Civil Code is enacted in Uttarakhand, individuals engaging in live-in relationships, including those planning to enter such arrangements, must register with district officials, reports&nbsp;ANI. Moreover, parental consent is mandatory for individuals below 21 years of age.

Live-in relationships will not be registered under certain conditions, such as if they contravene public policy or morality, involve a married or otherwise committed partner, or if one partner is a minor. Consent obtained through coercion, fraud, or misrepresentation will also invalidate registration.

A dedicated website will facilitate the registration process, with details subject to verification by the District Registrar. A "summary inquiry" will be conducted to validate the relationship, with the Registrar authorised to summon involved parties or witnesses.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-uniform-civil-code-bill-tabled-in-uttarakhand-assembly-by-cm-dhami-live-updates-687375">Also read |&nbsp;India: Uniform Civil Code Bill tabled in Uttarakhand assembly by CM Dhami</a>

<h2>Consequences of refusal or termination</h2>

Should registration be refused, the Registrar must provide written reasons. Termination of registered relationships requires a prescribed format statement, which, if deemed incorrect or suspicious, may trigger police investigation. Parents or guardians of individuals under 21 must be informed.

Failure to declare live-in relationships or providing false information can result in imprisonment&nbsp;for up to three months, a fine of ₹25,000 ($300), or both. Non-registration may lead to a maximum six-month jail term, a ₹25,000 ($300) fine, or both. Even a delayed registration could incur penalties.

Also watch |&nbsp;Nijjar killing: India refuses to aid Canada in probe till evidence is shared

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/nijjar-killing-india-refuses-to-aid-canada-in-probe-till-evidence-is-shared-687480/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Children born out of live-in relationships will be considered legitimate and entitled to legal recognition. They will have equal inheritance rights, regardless of gender.

Women deserted by their live-in partners can claim maintenance, though 'desertion' remains undefined.

The introduction of a Uniform Civil Code in Uttarakhand fulfills a key electoral promise of the BJP government. Drafted after extensive public consultation, it aims to standardise personal laws, including marriage, divorce, and inheritance. Similar initiatives are underway in other BJP-ruled states like Assam, with exemptions for tribal communities.

(With inputs from agencies)

Once the Uniform Civil Code is enacted in Uttarakhand, individuals engaging in live-in relationships, including those planning to enter such arrangements, must register with district officials, reports ANI.

Once the Uniform Civil Code is enacted in Uttarakhand, individuals engaging in live-in relationships, including those planning to enter such arrangements, must register with district officials, reports ANI. Moreover, parental consent is mandatory for individuals below 21 years of age. Live-in relationships will not be registered under certain conditions, such as if they contravene public policy or morality, involve a married or otherwise committed partner, or if one partner is a minor. Consent obtained through coercion, fraud, or misrepresentation will also invalidate registration. A dedicated website will facilitate the registration process, with details subject to verification by the District Registrar. A "summary inquiry" will be conducted to validate the relationship, with the Registrar authorised to summon involved parties or witnesses. Also read | India: Uniform Civil Code Bill tabled in Uttarakhand assembly by CM Dhami Consequences of refusal or termination Should registration be refused, the Registrar must provide written reasons. Termination of registered relationships requires a prescribed format statement, which, if deemed incorrect or suspicious, may trigger police investigation. Parents or guardians of individuals under 21 must be informed. Failure to declare live-in relationships or providing false information can result in imprisonment for up to three months, a fine of ₹25,000 ($300), or both. Non-registration may lead to a maximum six-month jail term, a ₹25,000 ($300) fine, or both. Even a delayed registration could incur penalties. Also watch | Nijjar killing: India refuses to aid Canada in probe till evidence is shared Children born out of live-in relationships will be considered legitimate and entitled to legal recognition. They will have equal inheritance rights, regardless of gender. Women deserted by their live-in partners can claim maintenance, though 'desertion' remains undefined. The introduction of a Uniform Civil Code in Uttarakhand fulfills a key electoral promise of the BJP government. Drafted after extensive public consultation, it aims to standardise personal laws, including marriage, divorce, and inheritance. Similar initiatives are underway in other BJP-ruled states like Assam, with exemptions for tribal communities. (With inputs from agencies)

India: Uttarakhand mandates live-in registrations, requires parental approval for under-21s

Nepal has registered its first same-sex marriage. Five months after the Supreme Court issued an interim order clearing the way for such marriages in the largely conservative country...

Nepal registers first same-sex marriage after landmark court ruling

In a significant ruling, a US court has prohibited Johnson &amp; Johnson from using the bankruptcy of one of its subsidiaries as a means to coerce thousands of cancer patients into dropping their cases and accepting a settlement offer.

The appeals court made it unequivocal that a company must be genuinely facing "immediate, imminent, and clear" financial distress before seeking bankruptcy protection.

Following the court's decision, Johnson &amp; Johnson's stock experienced a decline of approximately two per cent in after-hours trade.

The lawsuits against Johnson &amp; Johnson stem from allegations that their baby powder and other talc products were contaminated with a harmful chemical known to cause cancer, resulting in multiple cancer victims taking legal action against the company.

Talc litigation saga: product withdrawal to bankruptcy

Since 2016, Johnson &amp; Johnson (J&amp;J) has grappled with a barrage of lawsuits regarding the use of talc in its products, especially after losing three cases that resulted in over $100 million in damages. The ongoing litigation led the company to pull all talc products from the market in 2020, citing poor sales.

Estimating that around 100,000 claims related to talc were either pending or expected to be filed against the firm, J&amp;J sought to safeguard its other products and offerings by creating a subsidiary named LTL Management in 2021. In a bid to avoid lawsuits, J&amp;J proposed that LTL Management, which had already filed for bankruptcy, pay a staggering $8.9 billion to resolve all talc-related claims. Subsequently, J&amp;J transferred its talc liabilities to LTL Management and sought bankruptcy protection for the subsidiary.

J&amp;J's legal manoeuvre aimed to settle the lawsuits through an $8.9 billion deal orchestrated via LTL Management. However, numerous plaintiffs rejected the offer, claiming that J&amp;J was attempting to coerce them into accepting the settlement by leveraging the threat of bankruptcy.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey, presided over by Judge Michael Kaplan, delivered a verdict on Friday, rejecting LTL's bankruptcy petition. Judge Kaplan cited that the lawsuits against the subsidiary did not demonstrate "imminent or immediate financial distress," leading to the rejection of the bankruptcy appeal.

Similarly, earlier this year, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia had&nbsp;turned down the first bankruptcy filing for the same reason.

This marks the second time within six months that federal courts have denied J&amp;J's bankruptcy lawsuit for its subsidiary.&nbsp;

Legal Community responses&nbsp;

While Kaplan's rejection of J&amp;J's bankruptcy case signifies a setback for the company, he also expressed concern about the growing backlog of lawsuits in the court system, which may cause further delays for cancer victims awaiting resolution of their cases.

Moshe Maimon, a lawyer representing talc victims, commended the courts for their independence and integrity in preventing J&amp;J from evading legal scrutiny through bankruptcy.

On the other side, Andy Birchfield, one of the attorneys advocating for the dismissal of the second bankruptcy, celebrated the court's decision, stating that J&amp;J's attempt to force a settlement on cancer victims through the bankruptcy court had been thwarted.

Furthermore, in response, J&amp;J's worldwide vice president of litigation, Erik Haas, issued a statement affirming the company's commitment to pursue a resolution for the talc claims with the counsel representing approximately 60,000 claimants, as the bankruptcy court urged in its decision.

J&amp;J has consistently maintained that its bankruptcy approach is intended to ensure a fair and equitable settlement of damage claims. The firm firmly stands by its stance that its talc-based products are safe, even though they have been at the centre of numerous lawsuits.

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

In a significant ruling, a US court has prohibited Johnson & Johnson from using the bankruptcy of one of its subsidiaries as a means to coerce thousands of cancer patients into dropping their cases and accepting a settlement offer.

In a significant ruling, a US court has prohibited Johnson & Johnson from using the bankruptcy of one of its subsidiaries as a means to coerce thousands of cancer patients into dropping their cases and accepting a settlement offer. The appeals court made it unequivocal that a company must be genuinely facing "immediate, imminent, and clear" financial distress before seeking bankruptcy protection. Following the court's decision, Johnson & Johnson's stock experienced a decline of approximately two per cent in after-hours trade. The lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson stem from allegations that their baby powder and other talc products were contaminated with a harmful chemical known to cause cancer, resulting in multiple cancer victims taking legal action against the company. Talc litigation saga: product withdrawal to bankruptcy Since 2016, Johnson & Johnson (J&J) has grappled with a barrage of lawsuits regarding the use of talc in its products, especially after losing three cases that resulted in over $100 million in damages. The ongoing litigation led the company to pull all talc products from the market in 2020, citing poor sales. Estimating that around 100,000 claims related to talc were either pending or expected to be filed against the firm, J&J sought to safeguard its other products and offerings by creating a subsidiary named LTL Management in 2021. In a bid to avoid lawsuits, J&J proposed that LTL Management, which had already filed for bankruptcy, pay a staggering $8.9 billion to resolve all talc-related claims. Subsequently, J&J transferred its talc liabilities to LTL Management and sought bankruptcy protection for the subsidiary. J&J's legal manoeuvre aimed to settle the lawsuits through an $8.9 billion deal orchestrated via LTL Management. However, numerous plaintiffs rejected the offer, claiming that J&J was attempting to coerce them into accepting the settlement by leveraging the threat of bankruptcy. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey, presided over by Judge Michael Kaplan, delivered a verdict on Friday, rejecting LTL's bankruptcy petition. Judge Kaplan cited that the lawsuits against the subsidiary did not demonstrate "imminent or immediate financial distress," leading to the rejection of the bankruptcy appeal. Similarly, earlier this year, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia had turned down the first bankruptcy filing for the same reason. This marks the second time within six months that federal courts have denied J&J's bankruptcy lawsuit for its subsidiary. Legal Community responses While Kaplan's rejection of J&J's bankruptcy case signifies a setback for the company, he also expressed concern about the growing backlog of lawsuits in the court system, which may cause further delays for cancer victims awaiting resolution of their cases. Moshe Maimon, a lawyer representing talc victims, commended the courts for their independence and integrity in preventing J&J from evading legal scrutiny through bankruptcy. On the other side, Andy Birchfield, one of the attorneys advocating for the dismissal of the second bankruptcy, celebrated the court's decision, stating that J&J's attempt to force a settlement on cancer victims through the bankruptcy court had been thwarted. Furthermore, in response, J&J's worldwide vice president of litigation, Erik Haas, issued a statement affirming the company's commitment to pursue a resolution for the talc claims with the counsel representing approximately 60,000 claimants, as the bankruptcy court urged in its decision. J&J has consistently maintained that its bankruptcy approach is intended to ensure a fair and equitable settlement of damage claims. The firm firmly stands by its stance that its talc-based products are safe, even though they have been at the centre of numerous lawsuits. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE

US court rejects J&J's bankruptcy strategy for lawsuit settlements

In pics: Bans in place in multiple US states within hours of court ruling

Britain's government overcame a legal challenge to its controversial policy to begin deporting asylum seekers to&nbsp;Rwanda&nbsp;as the High Court dismissed campaigners' attempts to win an injunction and said the first flight could leave next week.

Charities and a trade union had launched a challenge earlier this week against the government's plan to send asylum seekers to the East African nation.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/campaigners-urge-commonwealth-to-press-rwanda-on-human-rights-487001">Campaigners urge Commonwealth to press Rwanda on human rights</a>

Judge Jonathan Swift on Friday refused to block the removal of Iraqi and Syrian asylum seekers and denied an injunction to bar the first flight to&nbsp;Rwanda&nbsp;on Tuesday.

"There is a material public interest in the Home Secretary (Priti Patel) being able to implement immigration decisions," Swift said.

He said some of the risks facing the deported asylum seekers outlined by the charities were small and "in the realms of speculation".

The decision is a victory for Prime Minister Boris Johnson four days after he faced the threat of being removed by some of his lawmakers. He has said the plan would undermine people-smuggling networks and stem the flow of migrants risking their lives by crossing the English Channel in small boats from Europe.

Watch | UK to&nbsp;deport asylum-seekers to&nbsp;Rwanda: UNHCR accuses the UK&nbsp;of-being-dishonest

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/the-uk-to-deport-asylum-seekers-to-rwanda-unhcr-accuses-the-uk-of-being-dishonest-487103/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

But Friday's ruling is only an initial and partial victory because the court granted human rights groups permission to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal, and individual legal appeals have been submitted against the government.

The High Court will also hear a judicial review before the end of July, which could block the government's plans.

Johnson welcomed the court's decision.

"We cannot allow people traffickers to put lives at risk and our world-leading partnership will help break the business model of these ruthless criminals," he said. Britain and&nbsp;Rwanda&nbsp;struck a deal in April for the African country to accept the deportees.

SMALL BOAT CROSSINGS

The government's plan has led to an outcry from human rights groups, opposition lawmakers as well as some in Johnson's Conservative Party.

Rose Hudson-Wilkin, a senior leader in the Church of England who is based in Dover, where many of the migrants have arrived, said she felt "deeply ashamed" of the court's decision.

"It feels inhumane," she said.

About 30 asylum seekers have been selected for removal. During the hearing on Friday, the government agreed to drop the immediate deportation of at least five other people.

During the hearing, Raza Hussain, the lawyer acting for Care4Calais, Detention Action and the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS), which represents civil servants in Britain's Home Office (interior ministry), said the scheme was unsafe and irrational.

Hussain said the government had made "misleading and inaccurate" claims that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees had given it the green light, and that it was acting on false assurances about&nbsp;Rwanda's ability to offer protection to asylum seekers and process their claims.

Government lawyer Mathew Gullick said the criticisms and concerns were backward-looking, and did not reflect how the migrants would be treated. There was an "important public interest" in deterring illegal immigration, he said.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/uk-home-secretary-priti-patels-rwanda-plan-is-working-says-report-481212">UK Home Secretary Priti Patel's Rwanda plan is 'working', says report</a>

Last year, more than 28,000 migrants and refugees made the crossing from mainland Europe to Britain. In November, 27 people drowned in the Channel when their small rubber dinghy deflated, and many others have needed to be rescued from the narrow seaway, one of the world's busiest shipping lanes.

Under the government scheme, anyone who arrived in Britain illegally since Jan. 1 could be relocated to&nbsp;Rwanda.

The government hopes the plan will deter the Channel crossings, although more than 3,500 people have reached Britain in small boats since the middle of April, when the&nbsp;Rwanda&nbsp;scheme was unveiled, according to government figures.

Israel previously attempted a similar scheme to send asylum seekers to&nbsp;Rwanda. But in 2018 the Israeli Supreme Court blocked the policy, saying it was not compatible with the United Nations' refugee convention.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

Britain's government overcame a legal challenge to its controversial policy to begin deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda as the High Court dismissed campaigners' attempts to win an injunction and said the first flight could leave next week.

Britain's government overcame a legal challenge to its controversial policy to begin deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda as the High Court dismissed campaigners' attempts to win an injunction and said the first flight could leave next week. Charities and a trade union had launched a challenge earlier this week against the government's plan to send asylum seekers to the East African nation. Also read | Campaigners urge Commonwealth to press Rwanda on human rights Judge Jonathan Swift on Friday refused to block the removal of Iraqi and Syrian asylum seekers and denied an injunction to bar the first flight to Rwanda on Tuesday. "There is a material public interest in the Home Secretary (Priti Patel) being able to implement immigration decisions," Swift said. He said some of the risks facing the deported asylum seekers outlined by the charities were small and "in the realms of speculation". The decision is a victory for Prime Minister Boris Johnson four days after he faced the threat of being removed by some of his lawmakers. He has said the plan would undermine people-smuggling networks and stem the flow of migrants risking their lives by crossing the English Channel in small boats from Europe. Watch | UK to deport asylum-seekers to Rwanda: UNHCR accuses the UK of-being-dishonest But Friday's ruling is only an initial and partial victory because the court granted human rights groups permission to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal, and individual legal appeals have been submitted against the government. The High Court will also hear a judicial review before the end of July, which could block the government's plans. Johnson welcomed the court's decision. "We cannot allow people traffickers to put lives at risk and our world-leading partnership will help break the business model of these ruthless criminals," he said. Britain and Rwanda struck a deal in April for the African country to accept the deportees. SMALL BOAT CROSSINGS The government's plan has led to an outcry from human rights groups, opposition lawmakers as well as some in Johnson's Conservative Party. Rose Hudson-Wilkin, a senior leader in the Church of England who is based in Dover, where many of the migrants have arrived, said she felt "deeply ashamed" of the court's decision. "It feels inhumane," she said. About 30 asylum seekers have been selected for removal. During the hearing on Friday, the government agreed to drop the immediate deportation of at least five other people. During the hearing, Raza Hussain, the lawyer acting for Care4Calais, Detention Action and the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS), which represents civil servants in Britain's Home Office (interior ministry), said the scheme was unsafe and irrational. Hussain said the government had made "misleading and inaccurate" claims that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees had given it the green light, and that it was acting on false assurances about Rwanda's ability to offer protection to asylum seekers and process their claims. Government lawyer Mathew Gullick said the criticisms and concerns were backward-looking, and did not reflect how the migrants would be treated. There was an "important public interest" in deterring illegal immigration, he said. Also read | UK Home Secretary Priti Patel's Rwanda plan is 'working', says report Last year, more than 28,000 migrants and refugees made the crossing from mainland Europe to Britain. In November, 27 people drowned in the Channel when their small rubber dinghy deflated, and many others have needed to be rescued from the narrow seaway, one of the world's busiest shipping lanes. Under the government scheme, anyone who arrived in Britain illegally since Jan. 1 could be relocated to Rwanda. The government hopes the plan will deter the Channel crossings, although more than 3,500 people have reached Britain in small boats since the middle of April, when the Rwanda scheme was unveiled, according to government figures. Israel previously attempted a similar scheme to send asylum seekers to Rwanda. But in 2018 the Israeli Supreme Court blocked the policy, saying it was not compatible with the United Nations' refugee convention. WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

UK's first flight taking migrants to Rwanda can go ahead, court rules

A UK lecturer who claimed that she was axed for having a loud voice has been awarded more than £100,000 after winning a claim for unfair dismissal.

Dr Annette Plaut, 60, who was teaching at the University of Exeter’s physics department for 30 years, claimed that a combination of her being female and loud led to her dismissal from the university, according to BBC.

The tribunal, held in Exeter, was told that the lecturer was “inherently loud”, “naturally argumentative” in conversation, and spoke with vigorous hand gestures, and that she was so passionate about physics that she would get overexcited.

It was said that some of her co-workers didn’t like her “overbearing”, “boisterous” and a “Marmite” character, despite students having no qualms about her teaching style.

The physicist was suspended and then sacked following a disciplinary hearing in December 2019, after she was said to be shouting at PhD students and causing them stress and anxiety.

However, Plaut told the tribunal that her eastern European Jewish heritage and upbringing influenced her “stereotypical loudness and demonstrative and argumentative style of” teaching.

The tribunal ruled she was unfairly dismissed and awarded Dr Plaut just under £101,000.

It dismissed claims of race and sex discrimination apart from one harassment claim.

Dr Plaut told the tribunal that she wanted to be reinstated after being consistently treated unfairly by the university over decades and targeted for dismissal.

The university said the dismissal had nothing to do with her being female or Jewish.

“We continue to believe there are serious inaccuracies in these judgements and we are appealing the decision of the employment appeals tribunal,” it said.

(With inputs from agencies)

A UK lecturer who claimed that she was axed for having a loud voice has been awarded more than £100,000 after winning a claim for unfair dismissal. Dr Annette Plaut, 60, who was teaching at the University of Exeter’s physics department for 30 years, claimed that a combination of her being female and loud led to her dismissal from the university, according to BBC.

A UK lecturer who claimed that she was axed for having a loud voice has been awarded more than £100,000 after winning a claim for unfair dismissal. Dr Annette Plaut, 60, who was teaching at the University of Exeter’s physics department for 30 years, claimed that a combination of her being female and loud led to her dismissal from the university, according to BBC. The tribunal, held in Exeter, was told that the lecturer was “inherently loud”, “naturally argumentative” in conversation, and spoke with vigorous hand gestures, and that she was so passionate about physics that she would get overexcited. It was said that some of her co-workers didn’t like her “overbearing”, “boisterous” and a “Marmite” character, despite students having no qualms about her teaching style. The physicist was suspended and then sacked following a disciplinary hearing in December 2019, after she was said to be shouting at PhD students and causing them stress and anxiety. However, Plaut told the tribunal that her eastern European Jewish heritage and upbringing influenced her “stereotypical loudness and demonstrative and argumentative style of” teaching. The tribunal ruled she was unfairly dismissed and awarded Dr Plaut just under £101,000. It dismissed claims of race and sex discrimination apart from one harassment claim. Dr Plaut told the tribunal that she wanted to be reinstated after being consistently treated unfairly by the university over decades and targeted for dismissal. The university said the dismissal had nothing to do with her being female or Jewish. “We continue to believe there are serious inaccuracies in these judgements and we are appealing the decision of the employment appeals tribunal,” it said. (With inputs from agencies)

UK lecturer who was sacked for having ‘loud voice' awarded more than £100,000 by court

A judge in the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/child-killed-as-earthquake-strikes-southern-philippines-268381">Philippines</a> prepared to deliver a verdict on Thursday on the&nbsp;massacre&nbsp;a decade ago of 58 people, among them 32 journalists, in one of the country's most high-profile cases and its worst single instance of election violence.

Three generations of a&nbsp;political&nbsp;clan accused of masterminding the&nbsp;2009&nbsp;killings are among 101 defendants awaiting judgement, in a case seen as a crucial test of impunity in country where provincial power is often decided by corruption, intimidation and violence.

Seven members of the influential Ampatuan family are accused of conspiring to ambush the convoy of a rival clan as it travelled to register its candidate for a gubernatorial election in the southern province of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/two-explosions-rock-southern-philippines-ahead-of-election-218374">Maguindanao</a>, an attack that spiralled into a bloodbath.

Among the casualties were the wife and relatives of the rival candidate, lawyers and 32 media workers, who were executed beside a rural road in a volley of gunfire, before being buried with their vehicles in a huge pit dug by an excavator.

It was one of the world's single, biggest attacks on journalists. The defendants deny charges of multiple counts of murder and face up to 30 years in jail for each one.

There were 357 witnesses and 197 suspects, 80 of those still at large, including 12 Ampatuans. The family patriarch, Andal Ampatuan, died in prison of a heart attack in 2015.

Five other Ampatuan family members and 54 police are also on trial and lawyers for the families said a guilty verdict would be crucial for&nbsp;Philippine&nbsp;democracy.

"We are rooting for a conviction no more, no less," Nena Santos, a private prosecutor in the case, told reporters.

"This is very important because if no conviction here it would mean the impunity continues, press freedom is dead and the democratic process is at stake."

The judge and lawyers were in discussions about how much of the verdict to read out from its more than 700 pages.

The attack, known as the "Maguindanao&nbsp;Massacre", was chilling even by&nbsp;Philippine&nbsp;standards, where&nbsp;political&nbsp;assassinations are commonplace in elections for mayors, governors and even congress. Several witnesses in the case have been killed.

Muslim-dominated parts of the southern&nbsp;Philippines are notoriously violent, prone to lawlessness, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/philippine-troops-pound-islamists-as-death-toll-passes-300-16944">separatist unrest</a> and the&nbsp;rule&nbsp;of warlords aided by an abundance of arms.

Human Rights Watch said that regardless of the verdict, suspects on the run must be caught.

"The families of Maguindanao victims and witnesses will be at risk so long as suspects remain free," said Phil Robertson, the group's deputy Asia director.

A judge in the Philippines prepared to deliver a verdict on Thursday on the massacre a decade ago of 58 people, among them 32 journalists, in one of the country's most high-profile cases and its worst single instance of election violence.

A judge in the Philippines prepared to deliver a verdict on Thursday on the massacre a decade ago of 58 people, among them 32 journalists, in one of the country's most high-profile cases and its worst single instance of election violence. Three generations of a political clan accused of masterminding the 2009 killings are among 101 defendants awaiting judgement, in a case seen as a crucial test of impunity in country where provincial power is often decided by corruption, intimidation and violence. Seven members of the influential Ampatuan family are accused of conspiring to ambush the convoy of a rival clan as it travelled to register its candidate for a gubernatorial election in the southern province of Maguindanao, an attack that spiralled into a bloodbath. Among the casualties were the wife and relatives of the rival candidate, lawyers and 32 media workers, who were executed beside a rural road in a volley of gunfire, before being buried with their vehicles in a huge pit dug by an excavator. It was one of the world's single, biggest attacks on journalists. The defendants deny charges of multiple counts of murder and face up to 30 years in jail for each one. There were 357 witnesses and 197 suspects, 80 of those still at large, including 12 Ampatuans. The family patriarch, Andal Ampatuan, died in prison of a heart attack in 2015. Five other Ampatuan family members and 54 police are also on trial and lawyers for the families said a guilty verdict would be crucial for Philippine democracy. "We are rooting for a conviction no more, no less," Nena Santos, a private prosecutor in the case, told reporters. "This is very important because if no conviction here it would mean the impunity continues, press freedom is dead and the democratic process is at stake." The judge and lawyers were in discussions about how much of the verdict to read out from its more than 700 pages. The attack, known as the "Maguindanao Massacre", was chilling even by Philippine standards, where political assassinations are commonplace in elections for mayors, governors and even congress. Several witnesses in the case have been killed. Muslim-dominated parts of the southern Philippines are notoriously violent, prone to lawlessness, separatist unrest and the rule of warlords aided by an abundance of arms. Human Rights Watch said that regardless of the verdict, suspects on the run must be caught. "The families of Maguindanao victims and witnesses will be at risk so long as suspects remain free," said Phil Robertson, the group's deputy Asia director.

Philippine court to rule on 2009 political massacre

Thailand's Constitutional Court on Wednesday disqualified outspoken opposition party leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit as a member of parliament after finding him guilty of violating election law.

Thanathorn, 40, the leader of the progressive Future Forward Party, has emerged as one of the most prominent opponents of a government headed by former junta ruler Prayuth Chan-ocha after the new opposition party came a surprise third in an election in March.

The Constitutional Court found Thanathorn guilty of holding shares in a media company after registering his candidacy for the election to formally end five years of military rule.

In its ruling, the court said the evidence against Thanathorn outweighed that in his favour.

Thanathorn had denied the accusation, saying he transferred his shares before beginning the campaign.

Thanathorn has been a fierce critic of the army's involvement in politics and did particularly well among young voters in the election from which the pro-military party was declared the winner after a disputed ballot count.

Ahead of the court ruling Thanathorn thanked supporters at the court and said: "The Future Forward Party is a journey... All of us will continue fighting and keep moving forward.

Future Forward is part of an opposition alliance that disputed the vote count and accused the army of writing the electoral rules to ensure that Prayuth, the former military leader, would remain as prime minister.

The court had earlier suspended Thanathorn from parliament pending the verdict to this case.

Thanathorn’s party won 80 out of 500 available seats in the Lower House of the Thai parliament.

The Future Forward leader also faces two criminal charges, one for computer crime for a speech he posted on Facebook criticising the junta last year, and another for sedition for allegedly aiding anti-junta protesters in 2015.

Thailand's Constitutional Court on Wednesday disqualified outspoken opposition party leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit as a member of parliament after finding him guilty of violating election law.

Thailand's Constitutional Court on Wednesday disqualified outspoken opposition party leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit as a member of parliament after finding him guilty of violating election law. Thanathorn, 40, the leader of the progressive Future Forward Party, has emerged as one of the most prominent opponents of a government headed by former junta ruler Prayuth Chan-ocha after the new opposition party came a surprise third in an election in March. The Constitutional Court found Thanathorn guilty of holding shares in a media company after registering his candidacy for the election to formally end five years of military rule. In its ruling, the court said the evidence against Thanathorn outweighed that in his favour. Thanathorn had denied the accusation, saying he transferred his shares before beginning the campaign. Thanathorn has been a fierce critic of the army's involvement in politics and did particularly well among young voters in the election from which the pro-military party was declared the winner after a disputed ballot count. Ahead of the court ruling Thanathorn thanked supporters at the court and said: "The Future Forward Party is a journey... All of us will continue fighting and keep moving forward. Future Forward is part of an opposition alliance that disputed the vote count and accused the army of writing the electoral rules to ensure that Prayuth, the former military leader, would remain as prime minister. The court had earlier suspended Thanathorn from parliament pending the verdict to this case. Thanathorn’s party won 80 out of 500 available seats in the Lower House of the Thai parliament. The Future Forward leader also faces two criminal charges, one for computer crime for a speech he posted on Facebook criticising the junta last year, and another for sedition for allegedly aiding anti-junta protesters in 2015.

Thailand court bars rising opposition leader from parliament

court-ruling

Court Ruling, News on Court Ruling, stories on Court Ruling, articles on Court Ruling, Court Ruling stories at Wion, Court Ruling news, Court Ruling latest news