Three years after ending affirmative action in higher education, the Supreme Court will hear another case on race-based admissions, this time in middle schools.

On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Association for Education Fairness v. Montgomery County Board of Education. The case, which was originally brought forth in 2020 by the Association for Education Fairness (AFEF), a coalition of Montgomery County, Maryland, parents, alleges that Montgomery County's selection process for magnet programs (gifted programs for STEM and humanities studies in middle schools) violates the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause by discriminating against Asian American students. The county insists that the selection process is race-neutral.

Montgomery County changed its selection process in the 2021–22 school year. According to reporting from The New York Times, the county was facing pressure from community groups, including the NAACP and Citizens Assisting and Sheltering the Abused (CASA Inc.), over the underrepresentation of black and Latino students in its magnet programs. Previously, students were selected based on test scores and grades. The new process implemented a lottery system in which high-achieving students are placed in a selection pool and selected at random.

The AFEF's central complaint is that the new system factors school poverty levels into the criteria for pool eligibility. This means students' eligibility depends on their scores relative to students in similarly affluent or disadvantaged schools, rather than the general population. They argue that since Asian Americans are concentrated in high-performing, lower-poverty schools, they have to clear a higher bar to become eligible. The group alleges the new system has caused fewer Asian American students to be admitted into magnet schools, a claim that is backed up by admissions data (which also show that the share of Asian American applications has fallen). The AFEF also cites Montgomery County's 2015 hiring of Metis, a national consulting firm, to recommend ways to make the system more "equitable" as an indication of the county's effort to "racially balance" its magnet programs.

​The complaint was dismissed by U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in 2022, who ruled that the parents hadn't shown the policy disproportionately harmed Asian American students, citing the fact that they made up a larger share of admitted students than of the applicant pool. Xinis drew a distinction between accounting for economic disparities, which she called "wholly permissible," and racial discrimination. "Alleged disparity in treatment based on socioeconomic status alone does not make plausible discrimination on account of race," she wrote in the ruling. The tension raised by Xinis sits at the center of many debates regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion, as factors like poverty levels can often become a proxy for race; therefore, policies that are neutral on their face can still disparately impact a certain race.

In February, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal, ruling that precedent from the Coalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School Board (2023) requires parents to show the policy disproportionately harmed Asian American applicants, which they hadn't. However, there is a real legal question as to whether racial groups should have to prove they were harmed as a group, as opposed to the individual, and lower courts have given mixed answers.

The ​Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), a public-interest law firm representing the AFEF, litigated a similar case in New York City, where the city implemented an economic need index in its admissions process for competitive high schools, aimed at increasing the number of black and Hispanic students. Again, parents alleged that the requirement discriminated against Asian American students. In 2024, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals found that if the city intended to discriminate, the parents don't have to prove Asian Americans were harmed as a group and that harm to an individual was enough for the case to move forward. The case was sent back to the district court to determine whether the city intended to discriminate, where it remains pending.

​The Supreme Court will now settle the issue and determine "whether a plaintiff challenging a facially neutral admissions policy as racially discriminatory must establish that the targeted racial group suffered an aggregate disparate impact relative to its share of the applicant pool," according to SCOTUSBlog. 

In a statement on Monday, PLF Senior Attorney Chris Kieser said, "The Constitution protects students as individuals, not as members of a racial group. A school district should not be able to defeat a discrimination claim by showing that its policy did not harm enough Asian American children. Every family deserves admissions rules that judge their child on their own merit."

The post Supreme Court Takes Up Accusations of Race-Based Middle School Admissions appeared first on Reason Magazine.

HRF alleges that Sean Glass likely gave the order to open fire. His alleged responsibility extends across Gaza: attacks on Al-Shifa Hospital, destruction of UNRWA headquarters, and the razing of entire neighbourhoods—devastation he publicly celebrated.

European People’s Party, Social Democrats, Liberals, Greens, and the Left agreed on the need for a firm response.

On Tuesday, all political groups in the European Parliament, except the far right, expressed support for the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the face of recent sanctions and pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump.

RELATED:

Trump Revives Election Fraud Rhetoric Ahead of Key Midterm Elections

During a debate in the European Parliament, Kaja Kallas, the European Union (EU) High Representative for Foreign Affairs, warned that the measures adopted by the United States jeopardize the overall functioning of the international court.

Kallas noted that the six-month period during which certain operations will continue provides an opportunity to attempt a diplomatic solution and assess the legal implications of the sanctions.

The EU’s top diplomat also stated that EU member states must work together to ensure that the ICC can continue to function both at its headquarters and in the various locations where it conducts investigations.

Mark Carney just got a standing ovation from European Parliament after he takes a stand against Trump.

The world doesn’t respect us anymore. The world is partnering against us.

America first means America alone. pic.twitter.com/6NgB8H5UtK

— Brian Krassenstein (@krassenstein) September 17, 2026

The EU official acknowledged that the European Union can do more to protect the court and recalled that the leaders of the 27 member states recently called for new initiatives aimed at mitigating the impact of the U.S. measures.

One of the main demands of the MEPs was the activation of the so-called blocking statute, a mechanism that would prevent European companies and operators from having to comply with sanctions imposed by third countries when these sanctions contravene international law.

Representatives from the European People’s Party, Social Democrats, Liberals, Greens, and the Left agreed on the need for a firm response from Brussels to protect the ICC and preserve its independence from external pressures.

Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodriguez visited the International Italian-Latin American Organization (IILA) headquarters in Rome to reaffirm Venezuela’s commitment to multilateral diplomacy and to cooperation between Europe and Latin America. She met with IILA Secretary… pic.twitter.com/PqQIc69RFZ

— teleSUR English (@telesurenglish) October 13, 2026

teleSUR: JP

Source: EFE

She maintained that the measure seeks electoral support among certain sectors.

On Tuesday, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said she believes the arrest warrant issued by a Florida court against former Cuban President Raul Castro is primarily politically motivated and linked to the U.S. elections.

RELATED:

Cuban President Rejects U.S. Arrest Warrant Against Gen. Raul Castro

The Mexican president’s statements came after the Florida Attorney General’s Office announced it had obtained a state arrest warrant for Raul Castro, 95, in a case related to events that occurred in 1996.

Sheinbaum maintained that the measure seeks support among certain sectors of the U.S. electorate. During her morning press conference, she stated that the judicial decision responds to political interests related to the November elections in the United States.

The indictment accuses the former Cuban leader of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder in connection with the downing of two planes belonging to the Brothers to the Rescue organization.

“Es político”, afirma Claudia Sheinbaum al dar su opinión sobre la orden de detención contra el expresidente cubano, Raúl Castro. La presidenta mexicana considera que el caso también tiene relación con las elecciones de noviembre en Estados Unidos. pic.twitter.com/17oxb2t0bQ

— La Periodista (@LaPeriodista_MX) October 20, 2026

The text reads, “‘It’s political,’ affirms Claudia Sheinbaum when giving her opinion on the arrest warrant against the former Cuban president, Raul Castro. The Mexican president considers that the case also has a connection to the November elections in the United States.”

In that incident, which occurred on February 24, 1996, Cuban military fighter jets shot down two civilian aircraft that had departed from Florida, in which four people died. The reopened case coincides with stringent measures taken by Washington against the island.

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier maintains that Castro, who was then Minister of the Revolutionary Armed Forces, was part of the chain of command that authorized the military operation.

The arrest warrant comes in addition to the charges filed in May by U.S. federal authorities against the former Cuban leader for his alleged involvement in the same events.

#WorldCup2026 | @CharlieMontero_ continues his journey through Mexico and discovers the incredible friendship and positive energy shared between Japanese fans and Mexican supporters.

Why is there such a special bond between them?

Find out here on teleSUR English. pic.twitter.com/Tn5dmE83CT

— teleSUR English (@telesurenglish) June 15, 2026

teleSUR: JP

Source: EFE

The U.S. Supreme Court's 2026–2027 term just got a whole lot boozier. On Monday, the justices agreed to hear arguments later this year or next in the case of Department of Justice v. McNutt. At issue is whether the 1868 federal ban on distilling liquor at home is unconstitutional because it exceeds the lawful regulatory power of the federal government. If any modern Supreme Court case ever deserved its own drinking game, this one is it.

In April, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit found the federal ban on home distilling to be unconstitutional because Congress lacked the proper authority to issue such a ban in the first place. It was not a legitimate exercise of the congressional authority "To Lay and collect Taxes," the appellate court reasoned, because "the purpose of a tax is to raise revenue for the government;" yet this law "amount[s] to an anti-revenue provision" that only "prevents distilled spirits from coming into existence." And if it does not exist, of course, the government cannot tax it.

The 5th Circuit also denied that the federal ban on home distilling could be saved by the government's appeal to the Necessary and Proper Clause, which says that Congress has the authority "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

But the federal ban on home distilling cannot be "necessary" to the execution of the enumerated taxing power, the 5th Circuit argued, because the provisions of federal law at issue "tax nothing, and are distinct from the regulation of distilling alcoholic products that is permitted by federal tax law."

Nor did the 5th Circuit find the ban to be "proper." "By purporting to ban activity without a plain connection to the exercise of Congress's taxation power," it held, "Congress has essentially—and 'improperly'—invaded the reserved police and regulatory power of the states."

The Trump administration lost this case at the 5th Circuit and has now successfully urged the justices to hear its appeal. In its petition seeking review, the Trump administration faulted the 5th Circuit for its overeagerness to "second-guess" the "legislative judgment" of Congress. Instead, the Trump administration argued, the federal judiciary owes a great deal more deference to the federal government's regulatory priorities in a case like this. "A law is necessary and proper if it is 'convenient' or 'useful' for carrying an enumerated power into effect, and 'plainly adapted' to that legitimate end," the Justice Department's brief argued. "That is the case here."

This case may lead to an interesting divide among the Supreme Court's more conservative members. In United States v. Comstock (2010), a 7–2 Supreme Court embraced the Necessary and Proper Clause as sufficient constitutional grounding for the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which had empowered federal officials to order the indefinite civil commitment of "sexually dangerous" individuals who had already finished serving their prison sentences. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the majority opinion in that case, while Justice Samuel Alito voted in concurrence. In other words, they both endorsed a broad view of congressional power under the Necessary and Proper Clause. By contrast, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, voted in dissent. The Comstock ruling, Thomas protested, "comes perilously close to transforming the Necessary and Proper Clause into a basis for the federal police power that 'we always have rejected.'"

Are we about to see a similar Alito-Thomas split over the proper reach of federal power in this case? And what about Justices Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Brett Kavanaugh? Will one or more of them play the Scalia part and similarly reject the Trump administration's broad reading of the Necessary and Proper Clause?

Stay tuned.

The post Trump Administration Urges SCOTUS To Uphold Federal Ban on Distilling Liquor at Home appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Demonstrators demand algorithmic transparency as Brazil’s electoral court gives Meta 24 hours to prove equal treatment of presidential campaigns.

---

Hundreds of Brazilians protested outside Meta’s São Paulo offices on Monday, accusing the technology giant of restricting the reach of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s campaign while boosting far-right candidate Flávio Bolsonaro, six days before the presidential runoff. The demonstration coincided with a court order giving Meta 24 hours to prove it was treating both campaigns equally.

RELATED: Brazilian Court Gives Meta 24 Hours to Prove Equal Treatment of Presidential Campaigns

The protest on Faria Lima Avenue called for an end to what demonstrators described as the suppression of progressive political content. Organizers also demanded transparency in content moderation algorithms, protections for activists and journalists, and compensation for damage to public debate.

The Superior Electoral Court (TSE) imposed the 24-hour deadline amid mounting scrutiny of Meta’s handling of the campaigns. The dispute intensified after internal messages emerged in which company employees acknowledged that Lula’s account had faced restrictions compared with Bolsonaro’s. The messages indicated that Lula’s Instagram posts could not be promoted for nearly 24 hours between Oct. 9 and 10.

“META NO SE META!”

Movimientos brasileños ocupan la sede de la plataforma de redes sociales. pic.twitter.com/wetfUpEryA

— Nacho Lemus (@LemusteleSUR) October 19, 2026

Text Reads: “META DON’T GET INVOLVED!” Brazilian movements occupy the headquarters of the social media platform.

TSE Justice Marco Aurélio Bellizze warned that appeals would not suspend the court’s orders and doubled the daily fine for noncompliance from 500,000 reais to 1 million reais, or about $180,000.

The court also ordered Meta to submit individual reports in Portuguese, explain its recommendation algorithms, provide details on electoral advertising oversight, and identify potential networks of fake accounts and AI-generated images.

“Unilaterally replacing deadlines set by the court amounts to noncompliance, particularly in a process whose effectiveness depends on time,” Bellizze said.

Ver esta publicación en Instagram

Una publicación compartida por teleSUR English (@telesurenglish)

Meta maintains that its content moderation policies apply equally to all political actors. Bolsonaro has also sought to join the proceedings, arguing that his own content has been harmed.

Concerns over digital sovereignty

Protesters argued that the dispute exposed the broader influence of social media platforms over Brazil’s electoral process. They noted that 70% of the Brazilian population uses Instagram to obtain information and accused Meta, owned by Mark Zuckerberg, of wielding opaque power over political visibility.

“We cannot say we have fair elections when a company uses its economic, technical and technological power to tilt public debate toward one side, which is what is happening,” said Dani Silva, executive director of Ctrl+Z, one of the organizations behind the demonstration.

The rally was organized by the Não se Meta coalition, which included the Landless Workers’ Movement (MST), Levantamento da Juventude Popular, Brasil Popular, Article 19, Ctrl+Z, Código No Binário, Diracom, the National Forum for the Democratization of Communication and Sleeping Giants Brazil.

Under the slogan “Meta, stay out of our election,” demonstrators displayed signs featuring Zuckerberg alongside U.S. President Donald Trump and chanted for digital sovereignty and Meta’s exclusion from the electoral process.

Activist Veronyka Gimenes, known as Trava Hacker, described the company’s actions as part of what she called “digital colonialism,” alleging that technology companies seek to influence domestic politics across the Global South.

“Digital sovereignty is no joke; it is something that must be taken very seriously,” she said.

Activist Tiana Cauton urged people to take to the streets to demand the democratization of communications. She also expressed hope that a new presidential term would advance “autonomy through our own open and clean social networks.”

Demonstrators said Meta’s influence over political communication had undermined Brazil’s national sovereignty since the 2018 elections, renewing calls for greater accountability for social media platforms during the electoral process.

Lower court order blocking re-detention remains in place until Supreme Court weighs in, after ruling said immigration law bars district judge from ordering release from ICE custody