From N.Y. State Div. of Hum. Rts. V. D. Auxilly NYC LLC, decided today by New York appellate judges Sallie Manzanet–Daniels, Manuel Mendez, Barbara Kapnick, Bahaati Pitt–Burke, and Matthew Parker–Raso:
Complainant, at the time a Missouri resident, emailed D. Auxilly, a New York based business that produces and sells attire, including bridal outfits, to inquire about a bridal jumpsuit she had seen advertised on one or more of D. Auxilly's social media pages. Specifically, complainant requested information about payment options for the jumpsuit. Complainant also informed D. Auxilly that as her fiancé had "fallen in love" with it after struggling to find anything she liked, complainant wanted to purchase it for their upcoming wedding.
Dominique Galbraith, D. Auxilly's owner and operator, responded on behalf of D. Auxilly advising complainant of the payment requirements of the business but that she would not be able to make the garment for a same-sex wedding because it would go against her religious beliefs. She also urged complainant and her fiancé to reconsider getting married….
The First Amendment does not shield D. Auxilly from liability for this discrimination. Unlike the baker in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm (2018), D. Auxilly was not asked to design and create customized items which might constitute an "expressive statement." Nor was it tasked with creating a customized wedding website, as in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023). Instead, D. Auxilly refused to sell the wedding garment it had previously designed and which it had marketed to the public. While the garment likely would need to be adjusted for sizing, this potential sizing alteration would not constitute an expressive statement. Neither would D. Auxilly's "speech" be compelled here by requiring it to sell the previously designed and marketed garment.
Enforcement of the [law] here also does not violate D. Auxilly's right to free exercise of religion. The statute is "neutral, both on its face and due to a lack of evidence that it targets religious conduct for a distinctive treatment."
{[T]he Division had jurisdiction in the instant matter because the discriminatory conduct occurred in New York and its impact was felt in the state. Complainant reached out to D. Auxilly, a business which markets its clothes as "made in New York," seeking to purchase goods from this New York business. D. Auxilly's discriminatory conduct based upon complainant's sexual orientation deprived complainant of an opportunity to engage in commercial activity here. Indeed, by affirmatively labeling its products as being "made in New York" but then refusing to sell those same "New York" products to people of a certain sexual orientation, D. Auxilly implicitly associated the City and State of New York with a discriminatory act, and the impact test is satisfied. Additionally, the fact that complainant communicated with D. Auxilly online through social media rather than traveling to a New York storefront does not deprive petitioner of jurisdiction over this matter.}
Finally, we find the awards of compensatory damages [$5,000] and civil penalties proper. The award to complainant is reasonably related to the wrongdoing, supported by evidence before the Division, and in line with other awards for similar injuries. Likewise, the civil penalty of $20,000 is neither disproportionate to the offense nor does it shock the conscience.
My thoughts:
Bridal jumpsuit! New one on me. A quick Google Images search further enlightened me.
Pedantically speaking, wouldn't it be "her fianceé" rather than "her fiancé"?
Oh, wait, there's a legal issue here. Well, I think that there's a First Amendment right not to be compelled to create speech, such as photos, videos, and web sites, and I've argued this since 2012. But I don't think there's such a right as to fundamentally nonspeech products, even ones that people use as conventional parts of ceremonies, such as cakes or jumpsuits (as I've argued since 2017). The precise line, of course, can at times be fuzzy, e.g., as to cakes or jumpsuits that have specific expressive decorations (e.g., words, possibly rainbow designs, etc.), but it's still a sensible line; for more on that, see this amicus brief that Dale Carpenter and I put together in Masterpiece Cakeshop.
For more on the designer, see here and here; for more on the case, see here.
Melissa Franco and Michael K. Swirsky (New York State Division of Human Rights) represent the state.
On December 2, the Supreme Court will consider constitutional challenges to "assault weapon" bans in Connecticut and Cook County, Illinois, that cover widely owned rifles, including the AR-15. As the plaintiffs in those consolidated cases see it, such laws plainly violate the Second Amendment because they prohibit arms in common use for lawful purposes. In briefs filed on Wednesday, Connecticut and Cook County urge the justices to reject that test, saying a weapon's popularity is not dispositive. The relevant question, they say, is whether their rifle restrictions fit a historical tradition of banning "unusually dangerous weapons."
Cook County and Connecticut have the burden of showing that their laws are "consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation," the test established by the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. On the face of it, that is a daunting challenge.
In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court said the Second Amendment protects the right to own "bearable arms" that are "in common use" for "lawful purposes like self-defense." That description indisputably encompasses "AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles," the firearms at issue in these cases. But Heller also recognized "the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'" Cook County and Connecticut argue that the rifles they have deemed intolerable fall into that category.
"There is a robust historical tradition of regulating unusually dangerous weapons that
compromise public safety," Cook County says. "Such regulations, which long
predate the founding, have included outright bans and other restrictions on exceptionally dangerous weapons like launcegays, trap guns, Bowie knives, and slung shots."
Cook County argues that its ordinance is "relevantly similar" to those historical restrictions because it targets "exceptionally lethal weapons that are disproportionate to the end of self-defense." AR-15s are "offensive weapons of war designed for maximum lethality and are not customarily used for self-defense," the brief says. "The purpose and operation of the ban is consistent with our Nation's historical tradition and accounts for the exceptional dangerousness of these technologically advanced weapons."
The ban is "an appropriate contemporary restriction implemented by the legislature in response to dramatic technological change and unprecedented societal concern," the brief says. "It is tailored to respond to the particular dangers presented in areas with mass casualty exposure and acute public safety risk."
Connecticut offers a similar argument. One problem with this defense is the premise that "assault weapon" bans focus on "exceptionally lethal weapons." As critics of such laws have been pointing out for decades, the features they target, such as folding stocks, pistol grips, and barrel shrouds, do not affect a rifle's basic operation. With or without them, a rifle fires the same ammunition at the same rate with the same muzzle velocity. And because AR-15s use intermediate-caliber ammunition, they are arguably less lethal than shotguns and many hunting rifles that are not classified as "assault weapons."
Cook County's emphasis on technological developments is also questionable. Constitutional guarantees establish principles that courts routinely apply to technologies that did not exist at the founding. Although the Framers did not have radio, television, or the internet, for example, the First Amendment nevertheless constrains government regulation of those media.
More specifically, Heller rejected the idea that modern weapons are not covered by the Second Amendment by recognizing a constitutional right to own semiautomatic pistols. The Supreme Court said "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." The Court confirmed that point in the 2016 case Caetano v. Massachusetts, which involved a state ban on stun guns.
Cook County also asserts that AR-15s are not suitable for self-defense, a claim that would be hotly contested by many owners of such rifles, who commonly report using them for that purpose. "Plaintiffs have shown that AR-15s are well-adapted for self-defense," U.S. District Judge Peter Sheridan wrote in 2024, when he reluctantly concluded that New Jersey's AR-15 ban was inconsistent with Heller while expressing his dismay at that result. "Evidence has been presented to the Court that the build of the AR-15 makes it well-suited to self-defense because it is 'light weight, [has] very mild recoil, and [has] good ergonomics'; it is a weapon which is 'well suited to younger shooters, female shooters, and other shooters of smaller stature.'"
Sheridan added that "the AR-15's design features—including the effectiveness of its cartridge for self-defense use and its better continuity of fire when used with available magazines—make the AR-15 a good choice for self-defense." And he noted that "the AR-15 has been used recently in several, relatively high-profile self-defense events in Florida, Illinois, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Oklahoma."
Cook County and Connecticut are also wrong in suggesting that self-defense is the only "lawful purpose" that matters. While Heller emphasized the use of handguns "in defense of hearth and home," it did not say that was the full extent of the Second Amendment right. To the contrary, the phrase "lawful purposes like self-defense" implies that the right extends to other uses, such as hunting, pest control, and target shooting. The decision explicitly mentioned hunting as a "reason Americans valued the ancient right."
The briefs are misleading in another way that may prove decisive. They conflate "dangerous and unusual" with "unusually dangerous," which is not the same thing.
During the 19th century, state legislators restricted (and sometimes banned) weapons such as Bowie knives, spears, sword canes, slungshots, and brass knuckles. But the historical evidence suggests those weapons were not targeted simply because they were "unusually dangerous." Legislators were also concerned about how the weapons were typically used.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who filed a brief supporting the challenges to the AR-15 bans, notes that the 19th-century laws targeted weapons associated with "duels, brawls, and other criminal activities." And in reviewing those laws, state courts distinguished between arms favored by criminals and arms commonly used for lawful purposes.
In 1871, for example, the Tennessee Supreme Court held that legislators could ban weapons that were "not usual" but could not ban "the usual arms of the citizen." The top courts of Texas, Arkansas, West Virginia, North Carolina, and Michigan concurred that the right to arms encompassed weapons commonly owned by law-abiding people, including rifles.
AR-15s and similar rifles readily pass that common-use test. In January, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the gun industry's trade association, reported that Americans own more than 32 million "modern sporting rifles," its preferred term for the models covered by "assault weapon" bans. Survey data suggest that somewhere between 16 million and 25 million Americans have owned AR-15-style rifles. Last year, a unanimous Supreme Court described the AR-15 as "the most popular rifle in the country."
According to Cook County and Connecticut, however, none of that matters. "Once it is established that a regulation pursues a legitimate public safety objective in a permissible manner, raw ownership numbers cannot immunize a firearm from regulation," Cook County says. It argues that opponents of its ordinance have misconstrued the significance of the common-use test and misunderstood how it interacts with Bruen.
"When the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct," the Supreme Court said in Bruen. "To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual's conduct falls outside the Second Amendment's 'unqualified command.'"
The common-use question, Cook County argues, figures only in the first Bruen step: "the inquiry whether the weapon at issue is one 'the Second Amendment protects.'" But even if ownership of AR-15s is covered by "the Second Amendment's plain text," it says, that does not resolve the question of whether they can be banned, which depends on the historical analysis required by the second step of the Bruen test.
"This Court's decision in Bruen confirms that the Second Amendment's step-two inquiry does not insulate popularly owned firearms from regulation," the brief says. In Bruen, it was "undisputed" that "handguns are weapons 'in common use' today for self-defense," including "outside the home." But "instead of being the end of this Court's inquiry, that observation was just the beginning." The decision also included an "extended analysis" of the historical laws that New York cited to justify its "proper cause" requirement for carry permits. "If lawful common use alone were enough to forbid regulation," Cook County argues, "there would have been no need to engage in that careful and prolonged analysis."
The question in Bruen was not whether the Second Amendment precludes "regulation." It was whether New York's specific approach, which required residents to demonstrate a "special need" before they were allowed to exercise the right to bear arms, was consistent with the historical tradition. That is why the Court considered (and rejected) the purported historical analogs that New York offered.
Cook County conflates requirements for carry permits, the issue in Bruen, with an outright ban on ownership, the policy it is defending. Connecticut likewise blurs the distinction between carry restrictions and complete prohibition.
"The Bowie knife was 'widely carried by Americans of all stripes,' including 'upstanding citizens and villains' alike," Connecticut's brief says. "The widespread use of Bowie knives and other weapons for lawful purposes did not prevent dozens of States from restricting those weapons." But those laws generally restricted or banned public carry. They rarely made it illegal to acquire or possess a Bowie knife, which is the approach that Connecticut and Cook County have taken with AR-15s.
That policy is hard to reconcile with Heller. I will quote Sheridan again, since his comments made it clear that he would have preferred to uphold New Jersey's AR-15 ban. Under Heller, he said, "a categorical ban on a class of weapons commonly used for self-defense is unlawful." Given "the Supreme Court's clear direction on this point," he concluded, New Jersey's law "is unconstitutional" as applied to "the Colt AR-15 for use for self-defense in the home."
Last July, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit agreed and went further, extending that conclusion to "the full class of semi-automatic rifles" banned in New Jersey. "Together, Heller and Bruen teach that bans or broad prohibitions on possessing or carrying of a class of weapons in common use for lawful purposes fail to find support in our Nation's tradition of firearm regulation," Judge Arianna Freeman, a Joe Biden appointee, wrote in the majority opinion. "That principle resolves our inquiry here."
To beat back the challenges to their laws, Connecticut and Cook County will have to persuade the justices that the 3rd Circuit's understanding of Heller and Bruen is wrong, meaning they are free to ban firearms in common use for lawful purposes. That seems like a tall order, and Cook County's position is especially puzzling. According to its brief, the fact that a weapon is covered by the Second Amendment does not mean Americans have a right to possess it. The more you think about that claim, the less sense it makes.
On November 3, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case that asks whether Colorado has unlawfully discriminated against a religious preschool because the school is barred from participating in the state's universal preschool program due to its refusal to accept LGBTQ families. In addition to involving multiple hot-button political and cultural issues, the case also has big implications for the future of federal antidiscrimination law.
St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy is not about a state law that directly prohibits a religious preschool from operating. Rather, at issue here is a government requirement that any preschool that wants to participate in the state's universal preschool program, and receive the public benefits that follow, must first satisfy various criteria, including that "each preschool provider provide eligible children an equal opportunity to enroll and receive preschool services regardless of race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, lack of housing, income level, or disability."
According to the Catholic preschools overseen by the Archdiocese of Denver, however, complying with that rule would force the schools to violate their religious beliefs. "It is undisputed that these preschools would otherwise be eligible [universal preschool] providers," the schools told the Supreme Court. "They are excluded solely because of their religious exercise—namely, their religious practices of ensuring that all enrolling families are supportive of the Catholic Church's teachings on sex and marriage and of treating enrolled four-year-olds in accordance with their biological sex."
These schools can point to a pair of recent Supreme Court precedents that will very likely count in their favor. In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020), the Court held that if a state provides educational subsidies that help parents send their children to private schools, the state "cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious." Then, in Carson v. Makin (2022), the Court held that Maine's tuition assistance program violated the Constitution by excluding private schools that offered "sectarian" education. "A State's antiestablishment interest," the decision said, "does not justify enactments that exclude some members of the community from an otherwise generally available public benefit because of their religious exercise."
I would expect the outcome of St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy to follow in this same general pattern and hold something to the effect that when a state provides an educational public benefit, it must make some sort of accommodation for the religious views of the recipients.
In Other Legal News
Justice Elena Kagan made news a few months back when she defended her conservative colleagues on the Supreme Court from the oft-heard charge that they are totally in the tank for President Donald Trump. "I don't see this as a court that is just like, 'We're just going to rubber stamp what the current administration does.' You know, quite the opposite," Kagan said. "I think that that is a bad rap." In support of her argument, Kagan pointed to the fact that the Supreme Court had recently ruled against Trump on the two big issues that Trump himself valued the most: tariffs and birthright citizenship.
Kagan was in the news again on Tuesday, this time because she publicly blasted those same conservative colleagues for issuing decisions on voting rights and political gerrymandering that, in Kagan's words, have produced "a democracy that does not work as well as it should." According to Kagan, the Court's conservative majority "has kind of blinded itself to the very deleterious effects of their rulings on how the political system works."
Does this mean that Kagan has now stopped defending the conservative justices from the pro-Trump charge? Not at all. In fact, as The New York Timesput it, "she reiterated her defense of the conservative-dominated bench from a July appearance and said it was a 'bum rap' to suggest the court had been too deferential to Mr. Trump."
I don't know about you, but I find Kagan to be a refreshing public figure in these simplistic, partisan times. She is a staunch legal liberal with clearly stated objections to what the Supreme Court's conservative majority is getting up to, yet she refuses to be associated with the laziest progressive attacks on the Court. How many people of comparable public stature these days are willing to call out the shortcomings of their own side?
The battle to save the global court and its capacity to enforce accountability for the most heinous crimes is one struggle with many fronts, writes Marjorie Cohn.
A Russian ballistic missile fitted with a cluster warhead struck the historic Pecherskyi district of Kyiv overnight on 21–22 October 2026, damaging buildings near two of the Ukrainian capital’s principal religious complexes, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said.
The missile landed between the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, a UNESCO World Heritage site, and the Holy Presentation (Sviato-Vvedenskyi) Monastery. Monastery buildings, homes, shops, cafés and other civilian infrastructure sustained damage in the surrounding area.
Zelenskyy disclosed that Russian forces had used three cluster-equipped ballistic missiles during the assault. Ukrainian authorities described weapons designed to explode in the air as they approach their targets, distributing explosive submunitions over an area approximately 400 metres in diameter.
After receiving reports from officials overseeing emergency operations across Ukraine, the president accused Moscow of deliberately choosing a weapon capable of inflicting extensive civilian casualties in a densely populated district.
“This was a deliberate choice of weapon and area of deployment,” Zelenskyy said.
He maintained that there were no military installations in the vicinity and that the attack had been intended to inflict maximum damage on civilians and their property.
Religious Buildings and Civilian Properties Damaged
Pecherskyi is one of Kyiv’s oldest districts, containing religious institutions and architectural monuments associated with centuries of Ukrainian history.
Among them is the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, established in the 11th century and subsequently developed into an important centre of Eastern Orthodox Christianity.
The complex includes historic churches, monasteries and an extensive system of underground caves. Together with Saint Sophia Cathedral and its related buildings, it forms part of a UNESCO World Heritage property that has appeared on the List of World Heritage in Danger since 2023.
Thursday’s explosion occurred in the area separating the Lavra from the Holy Presentation Monastery. Ukrainian authorities identified damage to buildings belonging to the latter, alongside neighbouring residential and commercial premises. Assessments of the destruction across the historic district were continuing.
This was not the first occasion in 2026 on which Russian weapons had damaged the area’s religious heritage.
On 15 June, a Russian drone struck the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra complex, causing severe damage to the Dormition Cathedral. Its roof and structural elements suffered extensive destruction, prompting UNESCO to undertake emergency stabilisation measures.
The October strike has again exposed the vulnerability of the capital’s historic religious buildings, as well as the civilian neighbourhoods surrounding them.
The Use of Cluster Weapons in Urban Areas
The reported choice of ammunition has particular implications for the investigation into the attack.
Whereas a conventional missile warhead delivers its explosive force around a principal impact point, cluster munitions release numerous smaller explosive devices capable of striking separate locations across a broad area.
In an urban environment, such weapons can cause casualties and destruction well beyond an intended target. Unexploded submunitions may remain dangerous after the initial attack, posing further risks to residents and emergency workers.
The International Committee of the Red Cross has warned that deploying cluster munitions in populated areas creates a high likelihood of indiscriminate effects.
Under international humanitarian law, military operations must distinguish between civilian persons and objects and legitimate military targets. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited.
The reported deployment of cluster warheads in central Kyiv therefore raises questions about whether those requirements were observed. Zelenskyy’s account of the three missiles had not, at the time of reporting, been independently established through publicly available forensic evidence.
Russian Barrage Follows Diplomatic Contact with Washington
The Pecherskyi explosion was one incident in a much larger attack on the Ukrainian capital.
According to Zelenskyy, Russia launched 21 ballistic missiles against Kyiv in three successive waves overnight. Ukrainian authorities reported at least two people killed and more than 30 wounded, with strikes damaging apartment buildings, commercial premises, transport infrastructure and energy facilities.
The bombardment took place shortly after Russian President Vladimir Putin met US presidential envoy Steve Witkoff in St Petersburg on Wednesday, 21 October.
During their discussions, Putin indicated that Russia was prepared in principle to resume negotiations with Ukraine and the United States, potentially in November. However, no confirmed timetable emerged.
Witkoff’s visit followed consultations in Norway between American, Ukrainian and European representatives over possible arrangements to end the war.
The renewed diplomatic activity has done little to resolve the underlying disagreements. As EU Today has previously examined, Moscow continues to advance territorial demands while the parties remain divided over Ukraine’s future security guarantees.
Meanwhile, Kyiv faces an immediate requirement for additional air-defence ammunition.
Zelenskyy has repeatedly appealed for more Patriot interceptor missiles capable of engaging ballistic targets. Difficulties surrounding American military assistance and intelligence cooperation have increased tensions between Washington and Kyiv at a time when Russia is intensifying attacks against Ukrainian cities.
The latest strike also presents Ukrainian investigators with the task of establishing whether the reported use of cluster munitions against a historic civilian district constituted an unlawful attack.
For Zelenskyy, the bombardment following Putin’s latest diplomatic discussions demonstrates that Moscow’s military conduct remains unchanged. He has argued that Russia’s actions provide no evidence of a genuine intention to bring the war to an end.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) has received the EU’s Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought.
Reacting to EU Parliament president Roberta Metsola’s announcement of the prize winner on Thursday (22 October), the Hague-based court said it is “thankful” for the recognition of the court and its officials.
“This award comes at a time when the court and its officials face unprecedented challenges, including sanctions aimed at disrupting the court’s judicial mandate,” ICC president judge Tomoko Akane told EUobserver in a statement.
The parliament’s recognition “underscores the importance of […] support to enable the Court to carry out its mandate independently and impartially, in the service of justice and the victims of the gravest crimes,” said the Japanese judge.
The court’s win comes after US president Donald Trump put his weight behind Israeli efforts to discredit the international judicial body by extending sanctions against it.
The ICC investigates and tries individuals charged with war and human-rights related crimes. When it issued an arrest warrant in 2024 for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu for alleged war crimes, the US responded by sanctioning its judges.
EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen welcomed the win, saying: “For victims of the world’s gravest crimes, justice means a voice. The ICC must be free to pursue its mission, independently, and without pressure or intimidation. Europe stands firmly behind president Tomoko Akane, the Court’s judges and officials, and their vital work for a world governed by rules.”
New sanctions against the court were announced by the Trump administration this month after the Nobel Peace Prize went to Navi Pillay, a former ICC judge who concluded in a UN report that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
Tomoka said: “While this prize recognises the work of the court in combating impunity and ensuring fair trials, it is also an important recognition of the role of international justice as a cornerstone of lasting peace. In a world marked by rising conflicts, there is no peace without justice and no security without law.”
Strasbourg stands for justice
French MEP Chloé Ridel initiated the ICC’s nomination for the Sakharov Prize on behalf of the Socialists & Democrats parliament group.
This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership
England and Wales judges to be able to keep inmates in cells for longer or stop visits if they refuse to face victims’ families in court
Offenders who refuse to face their victims’ families in court for sentencing could be stripped of privileges or kept in cells for weeks under government changes granting wider powers to judges in England and Wales.
The imposition of new prison sanctions, coming into effect next year, builds on existing laws that order offenders to attend sentencing or face a fine or be jailed for a further two years for contempt of court.
CCTV footage shows the police officer buying fast food, attending hospital, and visiting three separate Bunnings stores in the days after the alleged murder
Beau Lamarre-Condon ordered food from a McDonald’s drive-thru in a van allegedly used to dispose of two bodies, footage released by the court has shown.
Lamarre-Condon, 31, is accused of fatally shooting Sydney couple, Jesse Baird and Luke Davies, with his police service weapon in Baird’s Paddington home on 19 February 2024.
A Dallas-area juvenile arrested by the FBI for planning a terrorist attack on behalf of ISIS may also have been planning to assassinate Rep. Keith Self (R-TX), the co-founder and co-chair of the Sharia-Free America Caucus, according to information reviewed by Breitbart News.
The European Commission has urged Malta to strengthen judicial independence, tackle corruption and improve protection for journalists, as a European Parliament debate exposes continuing disagreements over the country’s rule-of-law record.
The European Commission has called on Malta to accelerate judicial reforms and strengthen safeguards for journalists, nine years after the assassination of investigative reporter Daphne Caruana Galizia, as the European Parliament revisited concerns over corruption and institutional accountability on Wednesday, 21 October.
European Commissioner for Democracy, Justice, the Rule of Law and Consumer Protection Michael McGrath told MEPs in Strasbourg that Malta had made progress in certain areas but had yet to implement several outstanding recommendations concerning judicial independence, high-level corruption and media freedom.
The debate followed the controversial acquittal of businessman Yorgen Fenech, who had been accused of involvement in Caruana Galizia’s murder. Maltese prosecutors appealed the verdict in September, leaving the criminal proceedings subject to further judicial consideration.
Commission identifies continuing weaknesses
The European Commission’s 2026 Rule of Law Report, published in July, assessed Malta’s progress in reforming its justice system, anti-corruption institutions and protections for the media.
The report acknowledged certain improvements, including additional resources allocated to judicial and prosecutorial authorities.
However, it found that progress remained limited on several recommendations.
These include reducing delays in judicial proceedings, improving the investigation and prosecution of high-level corruption and ensuring greater judicial involvement in the appointment of the Chief Justice.
The Commission has also expressed concern about the effectiveness of existing anti-corruption arrangements.
Although investigations and prosecutions have increased in some areas, Brussels continues to seek a stronger record of final judgments in major corruption cases.
Court delays and pressure on judicial resources remain significant difficulties.
McGrath told Parliament that the Maltese authorities must continue implementing reforms to address these shortcomings.
Caruana Galizia was killed by a car bomb near her home in Bidnija on 16 October 2017.
The 53-year-old journalist had investigated corruption, money laundering and political connections involving prominent figures in Malta’s business and political establishment.
Her assassination prompted international condemnation, widespread demonstrations and investigations into the circumstances surrounding the killing.
Several men have subsequently been convicted for participating in the murder or supplying the explosives.
However, the criminal proceedings concerning the alleged commissioning of the assassination have remained contentious.
On 2 September 2026, a nine-member jury acquitted businessman Yorgen Fenech of complicity in the murder and criminal association. The verdict was reached by eight votes to one.
Fenech had denied ordering or financing the killing.
The acquittal prompted criticism from Caruana Galizia’s family and organisations campaigning for press freedom.
On 22 September, Malta’s Attorney General formally appealed the verdict, challenging legal decisions made during the trial.
The appeal does not overturn Fenech’s acquittal or establish criminal responsibility.
The Court of Criminal Appeal must determine whether the legal grounds presented justify further proceedings, potentially including a retrial.
The criminal case remains separate from the broader political debate over Malta’s institutional reforms.
Maltese MEPs clash in Strasbourg
Wednesday’s parliamentary debate exposed sharp disagreements between representatives of Malta’s opposition Nationalist Party and governing Labour Party.
Nationalist MEPs Peter Agius and David Casa criticised the authorities’ record on corruption and institutional accountability.
Agius argued that repeated European Commission assessments had failed to produce sufficient improvements and questioned whether Malta’s institutions were effectively addressing allegations of wrongdoing.
Casa referred to the findings of the independent public inquiry into Caruana Galizia’s assassination, which concluded in 2021 that the state had contributed to circumstances in which a climate of impunity enabled the killing.
He argued that significant recommendations arising from that inquiry remained outstanding.
Labour MEP Alex Agius Saliba rejected the criticism, maintaining that Malta had implemented reforms and that its judicial institutions should be allowed to perform their functions independently.
He pointed to the prosecution’s appeal against Fenech’s acquittal as evidence that the judicial process was continuing.
Labour MEP Thomas Bajada concentrated on the protection of journalists and the need to counter misinformation while preserving independent reporting.
The disagreements subsequently prompted a response from Maltese Prime Minister Robert Abela, who accused opposition MEPs of damaging Malta’s reputation through their interventions.
Protection of journalists remains unfinished
Media freedom featured prominently in the Commission’s concerns.
Malta has introduced legislation addressing certain abusive legal proceedings against journalists, including transposing EU protections against strategic lawsuits intended to discourage public participation.
However, the existing measures principally concern civil proceedings with cross-border implications.
The Commission has urged Malta to extend comparable protections to domestic cases.
Other concerns include journalists’ access to official information, protection from intimidation and the need for more comprehensive legislative safeguards.
McGrath indicated that the Maltese government intended to present additional media legislation in the coming weeks.
The Commission has called for consultations with journalists, media organisations and civil society before the measures are adopted.
European institutions are also examining Malta’s implementation of wider EU requirements under the European Media Freedom Act.
Further pressure for reform
The European Parliament’s proceedings form part of the continued scrutiny of Malta’s institutional record following Caruana Galizia’s assassination.
The Commission’s annual rule-of-law assessments provide a mechanism for identifying outstanding problems and monitoring governments’ responses.
However, the implementation of many recommendations remains the responsibility of national authorities.
For Malta, the immediate issues concern the government’s promised media legislation, outstanding judicial reforms and the progression of the appeal in the Fenech case.
The Commission has made clear that further improvements are required, while the Maltese government maintains that substantial institutional changes have already been introduced.
The next assessment will depend on legislative measures actually adopted, their implementation and progress through the relevant judicial proceedings.
The International Criminal Court has so far turned a blind eye to the family of Shiri Bibas and her young sons, who were brutally murdered by Iran-backed Hamas terrorists after being forcefully taken from their homes during the Oct. 7 attack on Israel.
The Bibas boys — Ariel, four, Kfir, nine months, and their mother, Shiri — became the faces of the Israeli hostages held by terrorists in Gaza. All three were brutally murdered and now the mother's uncle, Maurice Shnaider, wants justice.
Before the court's Chief Prosecutor, Karim Khan, was removed for misconduct, Khan oversaw the issuance of controversial arrest warrants in 2024 for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and Hamas terror commander Mohammad Deif, alleging they had committed a variety of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Khan’s ICC only sought to grant "selective justice" according to legal expert Elliot Malin, who told Fox News Digital that he filed two cases with the Office of the Prosecutor in 2025 requesting warrants against the leaders he accuses of truly practicing war crimes, including genocide, in Israel and Gaza.
Malin, president of Stratos Council, filed his first case with the ICC in Sept. 2025. It requested that the court investigate and issue warrants for two Iranian officials for "crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide committed in Israel and Gaza on and after Oct. 7, 2023." Malin said that "It is very clear that the Islamic Republic is the principal to these proxies who are operating as agents of the regime… and we should hold the Islamic Republic directly accountable."
The request for investigation and warrants was filed on behalf of Shnaider, whose filings say he has lost five generations of his family "to acts committed with the intent to destroy Jews," including the Holocaust.
On Oct. 7, Shnaider told Fox News Digital that he turned on the news to see his niece, Shiri Bibas, "being taken away" with her young children into captivity. Bibas and her children were later murdered as hostages. Shnaider says that he prays that Bibas "didn’t witness how they did what they did to a four-year-old and a nine-month-old."
Shnaider’s sister and brother-in-law were also murdered at Kibbutz Nir Oz on Oct. 7. He explained that they "were burned inside the house in a brutal way that you cannot imagine, you cannot explain, you cannot answer." By the time of his sister and brother-in-law’s burial, he explained that "there was hardly anything left" to put in the caskets.
Shnaider says that the grief from the horrific losses of his family on Oct. 7 "doesn’t compute in my body," leaving him "choking" with tears. Though Shnaider acknowledges that he will never understand the rationale behind hate, he said that "the most I can do is fight them in the way I can." He believes it is now up to the ICC "to put a stop to it." If the ICC fails to do so, Shnaider says the court "should be condemned" for its bias.
While the case against Iranian leaders was filed on behalf of just the Shnaider family, Malin advocates filing a case on behalf of each family who lost relatives during the attacks of Oct. 7.
In Dec. 2025, Malin filed a second case, requesting investigation and arrest warrants for over a dozen Hamas members for a myriad of "war crimes, and crimes against humanity committed against Palestinians in Gaza."
Malin says it is also important to hold Hamas leaders "directly accountable for the crime of genocide." He explained that Hamas attackers’ own words prove that there was no military goal during the Oct. 7 attacks, which largely killed civilians.
Malin said Hamas attackers told Oct. 7 victims that they would continue attacks into Israel "until there are no Jews left in Palestine," and during phone calls to family, an attacker celebrated specifically having killed Jews.
"They’re not talking about soldiers. They’re not talking about people who, in the course of combat or conflict, would be allowed to be targeted. They’re talking about civilians," Malin said.
Malin added that the individuals now trying to justify Hamas’ actions on Oct. 7 "are now justifying the actual crime of genocide."
The case against Hamas leaders also notes their particular role in the deaths of innocent Gazans during the conflict that followed Oct. 7. "The goal there is to raise light of Hamas’ criminal conduct against Palestinians in Gaza," Malin said. He pointed out Hamas’ use of civilians as human shields and their torture of civilians, which he says "we have years of evidence for."
Malin said that the ICC has not responded to either of the cases he has filed. "If we don’t shed light on that at the ICC and the ICC refuses to do anything about it, then the only question for me… is what is the purpose that you serve?"
Malin argues that though the Iranian officials, one of whom was killed during the ongoing conflict with the U.S., were from a state that is not party to the statute, because the ICC has jurisdiction over Gaza, it is responsible for overseeing crimes committed there.
In response to questions about their response to Malin’s filings, the Office of the Prosecutor for the ICC told Fox News Digital, "On the Situation in the State of Palestine the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) is actively investigating all crimes committed within the Court’s jurisdiction since 13 June 2014. The investigation is ongoing, and the Office continues to collect evidence in that context."
The statement added, "The OTP carries out its mandate independently and impartially, in accordance with its founding treaty, the Rome Statute," it continued. "The Office does not disclose details of the investigation to ensure the integrity of its processes and proceedings and to maintain the safety and security of all concerned, including victims, witnesses, the Office's staff and all those who cooperate with the Office and support its activities."
Malin said that Khan sought warrants against senior Israeli and Hamas leaders for the crime against humanity of extermination, which he described as "genocide without the intent [to commit genocide.]"
That warrant was denied for Israeli leaders, but ultimately approved for Deif, though he had been previously killed in an Israeli air strike.
Earlier this month, Secretary of State Marco Rubio imposed sweeping financial sanctions against the court. In a recorded video, Rubio charged, "Our message is clear: The United States and the American people are not subject to the jurisdiction of this fake ICC."
Over the past 30 years, Zionist manipulation of US foreign policy has facilitated Israel’s destruction/destabilization of a 4,000-km swath of countries across North Africa, the Horn of Africa, the Eastern Mediterranean, & Western Asia…
Holy Trinity is a Ukrainian Catholic parish outside Pittsburgh. It practices the Catholic faith, but with rituals and architecture that are distinctively Ukrainian. The parish owns two plots of land. On one of them, in Carnegie, sits a church, where it holds regular liturgies. The other plot, in nearby Collier Township, has been owned by the parish for more than seven decades. That 41-acre plot houses the parish's cemetery and mausoleum but is otherwise mostly wooded.
About three years ago, Holy Trinity's pastor felt called to turn the second plot into a shrine, a pilgrimage destination for faithful to gather from "near and far." The shrine would "honor Mary, the Mother of God, and would pay homage to the sanctity of life." With the help of lawyers, architects, and traffic consultants, Holy Trinity designed the shrine. It envisioned a 13,000-square-foot chapel with gold domes, a bell tower, a museum, a gift shop, and a retreat center.
But the plot is constrained by Collier Township's zoning code. The code divides the township into districts, each of which allows certain types of buildings. The northern, wooded half of the plot lies in a planned-economic-development district, allowing larger projects like business offices, amusement parks, or country clubs. The southern half is in a rural-residential district, allowing farms and single-family homes. Neither district contemplates shrines.
The zoning code is enforced by Collier's five-member Board of Commissioners. The Board has power not only to rezone land or amend the code, but also to approve or deny some building projects, because the code makes some land uses conditional. For instance, the code conditionally allows new churches in rural-residential districts, but only if the Board approves them. In any event, anything as big as Holy Trinity's shrine needs the Board's approval.
To fit the shrine project into the zoning code, Holy Trinity applied to do two things. First, it asked the Board to amend the zoning code to allow planned cultural centers, including the shrine, in economic-development districts. Second, it sought to rezone some of its rural-residential land into economic-development land, to make a larger plot for the shrine. As part of its application, Holy Trinity included sketches of its shrine plus a traffic study showing minimal impact on the surrounding community. After a live hearing with concerned residents, the Board denied Holy Trinity's application, expressing concern about traffic and Holy Trinity's fundraising projections. Some residents, and at least one Board member, were also troubled once they learned that the shrine's message would be pro-life.
So Holy Trinity tried again with a smaller project. It applied to build a modest chapel entirely on its rural-residential land. Though the Board approved the new application, it came with strings attached, limiting bell ringing, the height of the chapel, and who could be remembered at memorial services….
The majority held that Holy Trinity wasn't entitled to a preliminary injunction, because the harm could be repaired by damages (one of the elements of the preliminary injunction inquiry); on this matter, the majority and Judge Paul Matey's dissent had an interesting and complicated debate. But here's a passage as to the facts that struck me as worth noting, even apart from that controversy:
Finally, and most troubling, both community and Board members objected to the shrine's pro-life message. One resident worried that "Father Jason has been very involved in pro life. This is to be a pro life museum … [W]hen you think very political rights, either side, it brings a lot of danger, a lot of protests, as well as costs that could be incurred by the community." Another complained that "the intent of the shrine was a celebration for Roe vs. Wade being overturned … [and] reparation for sin of abortion and counseling, spiritual direction …. this will bring a bunch [of people] potentially for a rally and this could also bring the opposite as well for protest."
Privately, at least one of the Board's members agreed. The day after the hearing, that commissioner forwarded an email about the shrine's pro-life stance to the rest of the Board: "Looks like we might have dodged a bullet last night. The true inten[t] of the shrine" was pro-life and "This could have been a disaster." Another township officer, copied on the email, seemed to affirm those sentiments. Nothing in the record suggests that any other Board member responded and disagreed. And in her deposition, the Board member who wrote the email confirmed that "one of the reasons" that the Board had denied the application was Holy Trinity's pro-life purpose. She also defended denying land-use approval "based on the nature of the religious service to be held in the building."
These objections hint at unconstitutional religious hostility and content-based discrimination, concerns that would be better addressed on a more developed factual record. But at the very least, they strongly suggest that the Board resists ever approving the shrine project. If so, the rezoning denial is effectively absolute, and the "degree" of burden on Holy Trinity is substantial. Plus, the township does not show that denying approval altogether is the least-restrictive means to serve a compelling interest. That is enough to show that Holy Trinity is very likely to prevail on its RLUIPA [Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act] substantial-burden claim….
Imagine if Sam and Dario and Elon and Mark, along with their boards of directors, bore individual liability for the damage their companies may inflict on society.
Imagine if Sam and Dario and Elon and Mark, along with their boards of directors, bore individual liability for the damage their companies may inflict on society.
Italy’s response to a weekend of street violence has moved from emergency policing to tougher criminal law, with Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni seeking to reassert control after unrest in Milan and other northern cities
The government approved measures on Tuesday creating an offence of violent participation in demonstrations, extending preventive detention powers to teenagers aged 14–17 and making parents financially liable for damage caused by their children. The package also provides for 500 soldiers to support security operations in Milan through December.
The crackdown presents a defining challenge for a prime minister whose political identity rests heavily on law and order: demonstrating that stronger powers can prevent another eruption while addressing the conditions feeding public anger.
Milan’s damaged shopping streets have become the most visible symbol of that challenge. Weekend violence brought looting, fires and confrontations with police, exposing businesses and residents to disorder in Italy’s financial capital.
As EU Today reported in its earlier coverage of the unrest, police brought 271 people to headquarters following Sunday’s disturbances, including 220 minors. Thirty-two were formally arrested, a detail that matters when assessing the scale of alleged criminal involvement.
The prominence of teenagers has shaped the government’s response. According to the Associated Press, the decree makes prosecuting minors over 14 easier and includes plans to expand juvenile detention capacity and judicial resources. Parliament must convert the decree into law within 60 days.
For supporters, the argument is straightforward: shopkeepers should not have to absorb the cost of destruction, and officers need effective tools against groups exploiting demonstrations to commit offences.
Yet preventive detention raises a different question from punishment after conviction. Its credibility depends on clear evidence, consistent safeguards and meaningful scrutiny, particularly when those affected are children.
Making the distinction will help determine whether the package strengthens public confidence or deepens distrust among young people already alienated from political institutions.
The wider European debate offers a warning. In its earlier editorial, EU Global examined the tension between public-order legislation and the right to protest, arguing that governments risk restricting legitimate dissent when security powers expand too broadly. That commentary predates the Milan disturbances but addresses the central democratic question now confronting Italy.
Peaceful assembly and criminal violence require different responses. Protecting the former gives authorities greater legitimacy when confronting the latter; treating an entire demonstration as suspect risks weakening that distinction.
Meloni also faces a political vulnerability that additional arrests cannot automatically resolve. The Financial Times reported that the unrest involved teenagers mobilised through social media, many without political affiliations, against a background of economic stagnation and expensive living conditions.
Those circumstances complicate any attempt to explain the disorder through a single organisation, ideology or grievance. Online mobilisation can accelerate confrontation without producing leaders capable of negotiating an end to it.
For the government, this makes prevention as important as punishment. Better intelligence, timely deployment and coordination between national and municipal authorities will influence whether stronger legislation produces safer streets.
The same applies to the military presence. Soldiers can provide visible reassurance, but the political test will be whether residents and businesses experience sustained security once the immediate emergency passes.
Italy faces two connected tasks.
Establishing individual responsibility for destruction and restoring confidence that lawful political participation can deliver results will be the priorities if public respect for the law is to be maintained.
Meloni’s new measures offer a forceful immediate answer to the first. Their lasting success will depend on whether the government can make progress on the second, before another weekend of anger becomes another emergency requiring still tougher powers.
The National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) on Oct. 21 searched the premises of Andriy Pyshnyi, head of the National Bank of Ukraine, a law enforcement source told the Kyiv Independent.
Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey, a Republican, commuted the sentence of a death row inmate on Tuesday after the current Jefferson County district attorney and several former judges and prosecutors raised concerns about his conviction.
The governor said she was commuting Toforest Johnson’s death sentence to life in prison without parole. Johnson, who has long maintained his innocence, was convicted in the 1995 murder of Jefferson County Deputy Sheriff William Hardy. He remains incarcerated at the Holman Correctional Facility.
"When presented with Mr. Johnson’s case, I had concerns there was not enough direct evidence to carry out the most serious punishment, death," Ivey said in a statement. "My decision is not a determination of innocence, but a recognition that the circumstances of this case justify commuting his death sentence to life imprisonment, without possibility of parole."
Ivey has commuted the death sentences of three death row inmates since she became governor in 2017. She has also overseen 27 executions during her tenure, which will end in January because she is term-limited and cannot run for re-election.
The governor spared his life despite Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall urging her last week to reject the clemency request and "respect the jury's decision" and the rulings of the courts reviewing Johnson's case.
On July 19, 1995, Hardy was shot twice in the head as he was working off-duty security outside a hotel in Birmingham. Johnson said he was on the other side of the city when the shooting happened.
One of Johnson’s attorneys, Ty Alper, said he and his client are grateful to Ivey for "diligently reviewing Toforest’s case and taking action to spare an innocent man from execution," but added that they will continue to fight to overturn the conviction.
"Toforest Johnson is innocent. Now it is up to the courts to overturn his conviction and grant him a new trial. We will keep fighting until he is home with his family," Alper said in a statement.
Johnson's attorneys have waged a yearslong legal battle to secure a new trial. His push for a new trial has received national attention and attracted widespread support, including from prominent lawyers, such as the original prosecutor in his case, as well as celebrities such as Kim Kardashian.
Several former judges and prosecutors have joined supporters seeking a new trial for Johnson over questions about his conviction. Former Alabama Attorney General Bill Baxley, former Chief Justices of the Alabama Supreme Court Sonny Hornsby and Drayton Nabers and other former judges and prosecutors have submitted briefs or written editorials backing a new trial.
Jefferson County District Attorney Danny Carr, who was elected in 2018, is among those who have backed Johnson’s call for a new trial. In 2024, Carr wrote in a court filing that the "evidence in this case has unraveled over 20 years."
Carr said that credible alibi witnesses placed Johnson in another area at the time of the shooting. He also said there are multiple reasons to doubt the key prosecution witness, who "claimed she overheard Johnson confess to the murder on a three-way phone call on which she was eavesdropping."
The woman testified during Johnson's 1998 trial that she was eavesdropping on a phone call when she heard a man she believed was Johnson admitting to the shooting.
She received a $5,000 reward in 2001 for her assistance in the case.
Johnson’s lawyers said that the state withheld evidence of monetary incentive for her testimony.
Court of appeal decision prevents woman from suing police and CPS for disclosing her address to violent ex-partner
The Labour MP Jess Phillips has said she hopes the UK’s highest court “sees sense” and overturns a ruling preventing a domestic abuse survivor from suing Sussex police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for disclosing her address to her violent ex-partner.
Phillips said that if the supreme court upheld the court of appeal’s decision when it hears the case on Wednesday and Thursday, it would prevent police from being held accountable for failures in cases of violence against women and girls.
The Department of Justice is allowing business groups to exclude Americans in posts that advertise jobs to H-1B workers and other non-immigrant foreign workers.
Login
