A judge has temporarily blocked President Donald Trump's plan to place 2,200 employees of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) on paid leave, just hours before the action was set to begin. Judge Carl Nichols issued a "limited" temporary restraining order following a last-minute lawsuit filed by two unions seeking to protect the agency. The order will remain in effect until 14 February at midnight. Thousands at USAID put on forced leave under Trump’s plan Trump has argued that USAID, the US’s primary foreign aid agency, is an inefficient use of taxpayer dollars and has aimed to reduce its operations. He proposed placing nearly all of the agency’s 10,000 employees on leave, with the exception of 611. Previously, around 500 employees had already been put on administrative leave, and another 2,200 were scheduled to join them from midnight on Friday. The unions filed a lawsuit on Friday claiming that the government's actions violated the US Constitution and harmed the workers. Judge Nichols agreed with the unions, stating that they would face "irreparable harm" without the court's intervention, and there would be "zero harm to the government." The ruling mandates that all USAID employees currently on administrative leave be reinstated and have full access to email, payment, and security systems until 14 February. No additional employees will be placed on administrative leave before that date. The judge will hear further arguments on Wednesday regarding the potential for a longer-term halt to the plan. It remains unclear what will happen to the jobs of the other USAID staff members. Meanwhile, signs at USAID’s headquarters in Washington DC were being covered up as the ruling was issued. USAID, the world’s largest aid donor, manages significant health programs worldwide, with two-thirds of its 10,000 employees working abroad. The agency is one of several federal organizations being targeted by the Trump administration to reduce federal spending. Trump’s campaign included plans to overhaul the government, and he formed an advisory group, the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), led by tech billionaire Elon Musk, to reduce the budget. Judge Nichols issued the ruling in response to an emergency petition from the American Foreign Service Association and the American Federation of Government Employees, two unions representing USAID staff. During the hearing, Nichols, who was nominated by Trump, seemed unlikely to grant other requests in the lawsuit, such as restoring grants or reopening USAID offices. The unions argued that the president was violating federal law by attempting to dismantle the agency without congressional approval. From fighting disease to protecting the Amazon rainforest, USAID has big impact across the globe Trump’s administration, through Justice Department representative Brett Shumate, claimed that the president had decided there was corruption and fraud within USAID. After taking office, Trump signed an executive order halting foreign assistance until funds were reviewed under his "America First" policy, resulting in a stop work order for USAID. In response, former USAID administrator Samantha Power criticized the decision in a New York Times op-ed, calling it one of the worst foreign policy blunders in US history. USAID's budget of approximately $40 billion constitutes 0.6% of the total US government spending. Global humanitarian organizations, including UNAIDS, warned that cuts to USAID funding would have severe global consequences, with predicted increases in AIDS-related deaths over the next five years.  

The government has approved an ordinance that maintains the provision for appointing judges to the High Court (HC) through the establishment of a council. Law Affairs Adviser Prof Asif Nazrul announced this at a press conference regarding HC judge appointments and other contemporary affairs held at the Secretariat on Tuesday. He revealed that the Council of Advisory approved the draft of the 'Supreme Court Judge Appointment Ordinance, 2025' on January 17 and its gazette was published on Tuesday. Emphasising the importance of appointing neutral and competent judges, he said that the human rights of the 18 crore people would remain at risk if impartial and qualified individuals are not appointed as HC judges through a transparent process. "The gazette for the 'Supreme Court Judge Appointment Ordinance 2025' was issued today. You all know that under the previous government, the High Court became a major platform for lawlessness, human rights violations, and the repression of people. Even in the face of severe human rights violations, people were denied redress," he added. The Law Adviser noted that political parties and civil society organisations had long been advocating for the appointment of skilled, experienced and neutral judges to the HC to ensure justice. Read: Govt okays SC Judges Appointment Ord According to the ordinance, the formation of the Supreme Judicial Appointment Council for HC judge appointments is mandated. The council will be headed by the Chief Justice and will include two justices each from the Appellate Division and the HC, along with the Attorney General. "The council will first conduct a thorough scrutiny. They will gather potential candidates on their own initiative, but anyone—be it an individual or a lawyer—can also submit recommendations. This process will be open, and the council will hold interviews after the initial scrutiny," the ordinance explains. Adviser Asif further assured, "Judges will be appointed to the High Court through a transparent and accountable process. Hopefully, with the High Court's involvement, we will be able to establish a better appointment process than in any previous tenure." He said that judges for the HC will be appointed from both the judicial services and the pool of lawyers, with the council determining the appropriate ratio for each group. Regarding the trial progress at the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT), the Law Adviser expressed satisfaction, saying that there is no connection between the election and the prosecution of the former Awami League government's cohorts. Read more: Political appointment of judges destroyed judiciary: Asif Nazrul A second ICT could be formed to expedite trials, if necessary, and that political party unity could further accelerate the election process, he added.

The newly appointed judges of the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh met the President Abdul Hamid at Bangabhaban this evening. The newly appointed judges are Justice Mohammad Shawkat Ullah Chowdhury, Justice Md Atabullah, Justice Biswajit Debnath, Justice Md Aminul Islam, Justice Md Ali Reza, Justice Md Bazlur Rahman, Justice KM Imrul Kayesh, Justice Fahmida Quader, Justice Md Bashir Ullah, Justice SM Masud Hossain Dolan and Justice AKM Rabiul Hasan. President's Press Secretary Zainal Abedin said in the briefing that  congratulating the new judges of the High Court, President Hamid hoped that the new judges would utilize their talent and experience so that the people get justice quickly. Mentioning the high expectations of the people towards the judiciary, the President stressed on increasing the use of modern technology in the judicial process to meet the expectations of the people. Secretaries of the President were present at this time. Also read: Chief Justice presents annual report on JSC to President Hamid

At least 22 judges of lower courts have been infected with Covid-19 during a training at Bangladesh Judicial Administration Training Institute, officials said on Monday. The infected judges were from 43rd and 44th batches of the training, said director of Bangladesh Judicial Administration Training Institute, Mohammad Golam Kibria. Also read: Top Rajshahi officials test positive for Covid-19 They were kept in isolation at the institute, he said. The authorities concerned also suspended the training until further notice, as the judges got infected with the virus, he added. The two-month long training of 70 judges of different Assistant Judges and Judicial Magistrates began on January 9. Also read: Asaduzzaman Noor contracts Covid-19

The Supreme Court on Monday withdrew the criminal judicial powers of Mosammat Quamrunnahar, former judge of the Dhaka Women and Children Repression Prevention Tribunal-7, for granting bail to a rape accused despite the court’s stay order on it. A five-member bench of the Appellate Division, led by Chief Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain passed the order when she appeared before the court. Quamrunnahar appeared at the court around 9:20 am. According to court sources, Aslam Shikder, former event manager of a private TV channel, accused in a rape case, was granted bail by a High Court in 2019, which was stayed by a chamber judge until a hearing by the Appellate Division. READ: Judge Kamrunnahar loses judicial power temporarily On March 2, 2020, Quamrunnahar granted bail to Aslam even though the hearing on the case was still pending before the Appellate Division.  Quamrunnahar was asked to appear before the SC on April 2 to explain her granting the bail when the state counsel brought the issue to the court. The SC also asked Aslam to surrender before the lower court. On September 13, 2018, a rape case was filed against Aslam Shikder, former event manager of a private TV channel. On October 14, last year, Dhaka Women and Children Repression Prevention Court-5 acquitted Aslam in the case. But the state appealed against the acquittal before the HC and the hearing is pending,  said Deputy Attorney General Biswajit Debnath on November 15.  Quamrunnahar made headlines early this month for her observation that police should not accept any rape case 72 hours after the offense. It triggered a storm of protests across the country. Then on November 14  Quamrunnahar was asked by the chief justice not to sit in the court. Later, she was attached to the law and justice department of the law ministry. READ: SC directs lower court judges to give decisions publicly Quamrunnhar’s controversial observation came on November 11 when she acquitted all five accused, including Shafat Ahmed, son of Apan Jewellers’ owner, from the charges of raping two girls in Banani’s Raitree hotel in 2017.

Mosammat Kamrunnahar, Judge of the Dhaka Women and Children Repression Prevention Tribunal-7, has been asked not to sit in the court from Sunday morning. However, she has been attached to the law and justice department of the Law Ministry. Chief Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain took the decision in consultation with senior justices of the Supreme Court (SC), revoking her judicial power temporarily, said an SC media release. “As per the directive, Judge Kamrunnahar won’t be allowed to sit in the court from 9:30 am on Sunday,” the release said. Read: Nine new High Court judges take oath However, the SC also sent a letter to the Law Ministry seeking attachment of Judge Kamrunnahar to the Law Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Division after revoking her judicial powers temporarily. The SC issued the press release a day after Law Minister Anisul Haque said he would send a letter to the Chief Justice seeking action against Judge Mosammat Kamrunnahar for making an observation while delivering judgement in the Banani double rape case. Read: Plan to dispose 6 lakh pending cases by 2022: Law Minister Five accused in the sensational Banani Raintree Hotel rape case were acquitted by the court of Judge Mosammat Kamrunnahar. In her judgement on Thursday, Kamrunnahar recommended the police not to accept rape cases 72 hours after the incidence.

Google broke Australian law by misleading users about personal location data collected through Android mobile devices, a judge found Friday. The Federal Court decision was a partial win for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the nation’s fair trade watchdog, which has been prosecuting Google for broader alleged breaches of consumer law since October 2019. Justice Thomas Thawley found that Google misled Android mobile device users about personal location data collected between January 2017 and December 2018. Also read: Google celebrates Pahela Baishakh with new doodle “This is an important victory for consumers, especially anyone concerned about their privacy online, as the court’s decision sends a strong message to Google and others that big businesses must not mislead their customers,” Commission Chair Rod Sims said in a statement. “We are extremely pleased with the outcome in this world-first case,” he added. Google is considering an appeal to the full bench of the Federal Court. “The court rejected many of the ACCC’s broad claims,” a Google statement said. “We disagree with the remaining findings and are currently reviewing our options, including a possible appeal,” Google added. The judge ruled that when users created a new Google account during the initial set-up process of their Android device, Google misrepresented that the “Location History” setting was the only Google account setting that affected whether Google collected, kept or used personally identifiable data about their location. But another Google account setting titled “Web & App Activity” also enabled Google to collect, store and use personally identifiable location data when it was turned on, and that setting was turned on by default. The judge also found that when users later accessed the “Location History” setting on their Android device during the same time period to turn that setting off, they were also misled because Google did not inform them that by leaving the “Web & App Activity” setting switched on, Google would continue to collect, store and use their personally identifiable location data. Similarly, between March 2017 and Nov. 29, 2018, when users later accessed the “Web & App Activity” setting on their Android device, they were misled because Google did not inform them that the setting was relevant to the collection of personal location data. Also read: Google gets into sleep surveillance with new Nest Hub screen Google said the digital platform provides “robust controls for location data and are always looking to do more.” The commission is seeking court orders and financial penalties against Google to be determined later. The Australia Institute Center for Responsible Technology, a Canberra-based think tank, said the case “highlights the complexity of Big Tech terms and conditions.” “The reality is most people have little to no idea on how much of their data is being used by Google and online platforms,” the Center’s Director Peter Lewis said in a statement. Lewis said reading most terms and conditions takes an average of 74 minutes and requires a university education, according to the institute’s research, and more comprehensive consumer data protection was needed.

India's Supreme Court Monday (April 12, 2021) dismissed a petition seeking removal of certain verses from the Muslim holy book of Quran for allegedly "preaching violence against non-believers". The apex court also imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 on the petitioner, Syed Wasim Rizvi, a former head of the Shia Waqf Board in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh, for filing the "absolutely frivolous" petition. "We have heard the counsel and dismiss the petition as it is absolutely frivolous,” said Justice RF Nariman, who led a three-judge bench hearing the plea. He also asked the petitioner's counsel to deposit the fine of Rs 50,000 as court expenses.  Read Hill Cutting: CDA contractor fined Tk 5.23cr In his public interest litigation (PIL) plea, Rizvi, alleged that as many as 26 verses in the holy book “promote violence”, and were not part of the original Quran, but added in later revisions. The verses in question were: Verse 2 Surah 191, Verse 3 Surah 151, Verse 4 Surah 56, Verse 4 Surah 89, Verse 4 Surah 101, Verse 5 Surah 51, Verse 5 Surah 14, Verse 5 Surah 57, Verse 8 Surah 65, Verse 8 Surah 69, Verse 9 Surah 5 and Verse 9 Surah 14. Others included Verse 9 Surah 23; Verse 9 Surah 28, Verse 9 Surah 29, Verse 9 Surah 37, Verse 9 Surah 58, Verse 9 Surah 111, Verse 9 Surah 123, Verse 21 Surah 98, Verse 32 Surah 22, Verse 33 Surah 61, Verse 41 Surah 27, Verse 41 Surah 28, Verse 48 Surah 20 and Verse 66 Surah 9. Also read: No evidence of disrespecting Quran found: Probe body As per the petition, Islam is based on concepts of equality and tolerance but is “drifting away from its basic tenets” due to “extreme interpretation of the said verses … and is now identified with militancy, fundamentalism, extremism and terrorism". The petitioner also asked for the federal government and Madrasa Boards across the country to be “called upon to ensure what steps are taken to avoid literal teaching of the verses advocating violence". Last month, police in Uttar Pradesh's  Bareilly town booked Rizvi under the Indian Penal Code for allegedly hurting religious sentiments of Muslims by filing the petition in the Supreme Court. Read Quran recitation, prayers to stop coronavirus in Ramadan: Hefazat Ameer

New York, Nov 7 (AP/UNB) — A federal judge on Wednesday struck down a new Trump administration rule that could open the way for more health care workers to refuse to participate in abortions or other procedures on moral or religious grounds.