Late Thursday, former President Donald Trump petitioned a federal court to intervene in his New York hush money criminal case, aiming to overturn his felony conviction and postpone his sentencing, currently scheduled for next month.

Trump’s attorneys requested that the federal court in Manhattan take over the case from the state court where it was tried, arguing that the prosecution violated his constitutional rights and conflicted with a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity.

The defense team, which had unsuccessfully sought to move the case to federal court before the trial, argued that relocating the case now would provide Trump with an “impartial forum, free from local hostilities.” They claimed that Trump had faced “bias, conflicts of interest, and appearances of impropriety” in state court.

Should the case be transferred to federal court, Trump’s lawyers intend to seek a dismissal of the verdict based on immunity grounds. However, if it remains in state court and sentencing proceeds as planned on September 18—approximately seven weeks before Election Day—Trump’s legal team argues this would constitute election interference, potentially leading to his incarceration as early voting begins.

“The ongoing proceedings will continue to cause direct and irreparable harm to President Trump — the leading candidate in the 2024 Presidential election — and voters located far beyond Manhattan,” Trump’s attorneys Todd Blanche and Emil Bove stated in a 64-page filing to the U.S. District Court.

The Manhattan district attorney’s office, responsible for prosecuting Trump’s case and opposing the earlier effort to move it to federal court, declined to comment, as did a spokesperson for New York’s state court system.

Trump was convicted in May on 34 felony counts related to falsifying business records to conceal a $130,000 hush money payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels, who alleged an affair that threatened his 2016 presidential campaign. Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer, made the payment to Daniels and was later reimbursed by Trump, with the payments recorded as legal expenses by Trump’s company. Trump maintains that the affair allegations are false, the reimbursements were for legitimate legal services, and that the prosecution is part of a politically motivated “witch hunt.”

Even if the case is not moved to federal court, the ongoing legal proceedings could delay Trump’s sentencing, giving him crucial time to navigate his criminal conviction and continue his campaign for the presidency.

Meanwhile, Judge Juan M. Merchan is considering Trump’s requests to delay sentencing until after Election Day on November 5 and to dismiss the case in light of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on presidential immunity.

The Supreme Court’s July 1 ruling limits prosecutions of former presidents for official acts and restricts using such acts as evidence for unrelated offenses. Trump’s attorneys argue that prosecutors should have delayed the trial until after the Supreme Court’s decision and that the trial was “tainted” by improperly admitted evidence, such as testimony from former White House staffers and Trump’s tweets during his presidency.

Trump’s lawyers had previously cited presidential immunity in an unsuccessful attempt to transfer the hush money case to federal court. U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein rejected this argument, stating that the charges were unrelated to Trump’s official duties, describing the matter as “a purely personal item” to cover up an embarrassing event.

Trump’s defense team argued in Thursday’s filing that circumstances had changed since their initial attempt was rejected. They claimed that state prosecutors misled the court by initially stating the trial wouldn’t involve Trump’s presidential duties.

The filing also referenced testimony about Trump’s potential use of his pardon power and his responses to investigations, which they argued pertained to his actions as president.

“President Trump is entitled to a federal forum for his Presidential immunity defense based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States,” Blanche and Bove argued. They expressed confidence that the charges would be dismissed if the case were moved to federal court.

The lawyers also reiterated their allegations that Judge Merchan has shown bias against Trump due to his daughter’s political consulting work for Democrats and criticized the judge for maintaining a gag order on Trump following the verdict.

Earlier this month, Merchan denied Trump’s request to recuse himself, dismissing the request as a repetition filled with inaccuracies and baseless claims about his impartiality. A state appeals court recently upheld the gag order.

Blanche and Bove contended, “Merchan is poised to incarcerate President Trump in the final weeks of the campaign, and he has maintained an unwarranted and unconstitutional prior restraint on President Trump’s ability to respond to political attacks by criticizing the New York County proceedings.”

Pope Francis has ignited controversy by strongly condemning the treatment of migrants, declaring that those who reject immigrants are committing a “grave” sin.

In his weekly audience at St. Peter’s Square, the Pope addressed the plight of migrants crossing the Mediterranean Sea to reach Europe. He urged people to consider those who traverse treacherous oceans and deserts, leaving their homeland in search of peace and safety.

The Pope described the Mediterranean Sea as a “cemetery” where many migrants have tragically lost their lives, despite these deaths being “preventable.”

“Those who systematically and by all means reject migrants commit a grave sin when done with awareness and responsibility,” Pope Francis stated. He argued that refugees should not be forced to cross dangerous seas and deserts, asserting that this issue cannot be resolved through stricter regulations and border militarization. “Instead, it will be achieved by creating safe and legal pathways for migrants and providing refuge to those fleeing war, violence, persecution, and various calamities,” he added.

Meanwhile, former President Donald Trump’s supporters have expressed outrage at the Pope’s comments. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, has centered his campaign on immigration, frequently attributing the rise in crime in the United States to immigrants, despite studies showing no link between immigration and violent crime. He has also promised to undertake the largest deportation effort in U.S. history if he wins the presidential election in November.

Trump’s supporters quickly took to social media to criticize the Pope’s statements, with one accusing him of “appeasing globalists.” An X user commented, “Pope Francis says we should ‘welcome immigrants with open arms,’” questioning, “Who thinks the Vatican is too focused on appeasing globalists to be a force for good when needed most?”

Critics of the Pope also pointed out that he leads the Vatican, a city-state surrounded by walls. “The Vatican is entirely protected by defensive walls and armed guards. Be welcoming! Let them all in!” one user retorted, while another added, “Our Pope apparently doesn’t understand the difference between knocking on the door asking for help and breaking into someone’s home demanding provisions.”

Conversely, supporters of Pope Francis defended his remarks, with one user clarifying that he was not opposing immigration restrictions but rather criticizing the harsh or disdainful treatment of migrants.

Pope Francis has faced criticism from conservative Catholics in the United States, who view him as overly progressive. Throughout his papacy, he has focused on social justice issues and marginalized groups, particularly the poor. He has also sought to make the Church more inclusive for LGBTQ+ Catholics.

During the discussion, the Pope also criticized Texas’ attempts to ban a Catholic charity providing humanitarian assistance to undocumented migrants.

SEOUL – In a landmark decision, South Korea’s top court ruled on Thursday that the nation’s climate change law does not adequately protect basic human rights and lacks sufficient measures to safeguard future generations. This decision comes after activists accused the government of failing to address climate change effectively.

Since 2020, about 200 plaintiffs, including young climate activists and even infants, have petitioned the constitutional court, arguing that the government was infringing on citizens’ human rights by not taking sufficient action on climate change. The court has now called on the legislature to revise the carbon neutrality act by the end of February 2026, stating that the current emission targets are unconstitutional as they fail to uphold the duty to protect basic rights and do not adequately shield future generations from the climate crisis.

Climate advocacy groups noted that this is the first high court ruling on government climate action in Asia, potentially setting a precedent for similar lawsuits in Taiwan and Japan. Earlier this year, Europe’s top human rights court found the Swiss government in violation of citizens’ rights for insufficient climate action. The Korean court’s decision was met with cheers, tears, and applause from plaintiffs, activists, and lawyers, who chanted, “The verdict is not the end, but the beginning.”

Han Je-ah, a 12-year-old plaintiff, expressed hope that the ruling would lead to significant changes so that children would no longer need to file such constitutional appeals. “The climate crisis is severely impacting our lives, and there is no time to waste,” she told reporters. Kim Young-hee, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs, described the ruling as “an important decision for society’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

The court criticized South Korea’s carbon neutrality act—originally enacted in 2010 and later revised to set emission targets for 2030 and a goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2050—for failing to provide “any quantitative levels” for emission reductions between 2031 and 2049. “Without a mechanism to ensure gradual and continuous reductions until 2050, the law sets reduction targets that would impose an excessive burden on future generations,” the court stated.

The environment ministry responded by saying it respects the court’s decision and will take necessary follow-up measures. Koh Moon-hyun, a law professor at Soongsil University, suggested to Reuters that the ruling could inspire changes in other countries, noting that “the court may have been influenced by similar rulings in Europe.” He added that the decision offers South Korea a chance to shed its reputation as a “climate villain.”

Scientists warn that a global temperature increase of more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels could have catastrophic and irreversible effects on the planet, including the melting of ice sheets and the collapse of ocean currents. South Korea aims to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, but currently remains the second-largest coal polluter among G20 nations after Australia, with a slow transition to renewable energy sources.

President Ranil Wickremesinghe of Sri Lanka, while launching his re-election campaign on Thursday, stated that the country had no choice but to accept an International Monetary Fund (IMF) bailout, which involved stringent austerity measures. Two years ago, Sri Lanka faced an unprecedented economic crisis that resulted in prolonged shortages of food and fuel, sparking street protests and forcing Wickremesinghe’s predecessor to temporarily flee the country.

Wickremesinghe, 75, emphasized that the $2.9 billion IMF rescue deal he negotiated last year mandated essential reforms to prevent a recurrence of these challenges. “The IMF agreements and those with our bilateral lenders are not negotiable,” he asserted during a campaign event unveiling his manifesto for the September 21 elections. “Some candidates believe they can renegotiate, but that’s just a waste of time.”

His primary opponents, opposition leader Sajith Premadasa, 57, and Marxist leader Anura Kumara Dissanayaka, 55, have both promised to initiate new discussions with the IMF to modify the agreement. Premadasa has vowed to reduce income taxes, which Wickremesinghe had doubled, while Dissanayaka’s party opposes planned privatizations of state enterprises.

Wickremesinghe also mentioned that he had reached an agreement with the IMF to reduce the tax burden on middle and low-income groups starting next year, although he did not provide specifics. Meanwhile, Sri Lanka continues negotiations with international bondholders after defaulting on its $46 billion foreign debt in 2022, during a year when the economy contracted by 7.3 percent.

Wickremesinghe faces opposition from the largest party in parliament, which supported his rise to power but where his predecessor’s family still holds significant influence. Namal Rajapaksa, 38, a lawmaker and member of the Rajapaksa family, is among 38 candidates running against Wickremesinghe in the upcoming election.

Additionally, Wickremesinghe has faced criticism for his refusal to fund a local government election last year, citing a lack of funds. The Supreme Court ruled last week that he had violated the fundamental rights of Sri Lankan voters and ordered the election to be held as soon as possible.

AHMEDABAD/ISLAMABAD – Heavy rains have struck the coastal areas of India and Pakistan along the Arabian Sea, flooding cities in Gujarat, western India, and forcing thousands to evacuate their homes. Authorities are predicting the formation of a cyclonic storm by Friday.

Footage from Reuters television showed people wading through waist-deep water that partially submerged vehicles and roads in some areas of the state.

Officials reported that at least 28 people have died this week in Gujarat due to rain-related incidents, while meteorologists in both India and Pakistan have warned of more heavy rainfall and strong winds expected along the coast.

“There has been no electricity for the last two days,” said Prabhu Ram Soni, a resident of Jamnagar, a coastal city in Gujarat. “I have an eight-month-old daughter and a mother with asthma who relies on oxygen support.”

Disaster management authorities stated that more than 18,000 people have been evacuated since Sunday from coastal cities. The army has been involved in relief efforts in Gujarat, which was also affected by Cyclone Biparjoy last year, resulting in significant damage and the evacuation of over 180,000 people.

Jamnagar, which hosts the world’s largest oil refinery complex owned by Reliance, was also heavily hit by rain, according to district collector B K Pandya. In nearby Vadinar, Nayara Energy, which is backed by Russian entities including Rosneft, operates another refinery.

“They are operational,” Pandya said when asked if the rainfall had impacted refinery operations, adding that the authorities were focusing on rescue operations in the district.

The India Meteorological Department reported that a deep depression off the coast of Gujarat is likely to intensify into a cyclonic storm by Friday, although it is expected to move away from the Indian coast over the next two days.

In Pakistan, the weather department has advised fishermen to avoid going out to sea until Saturday.

The IMD has also predicted extremely heavy rainfall in Gujarat’s Bharuch, Kutch, and Saurashtra districts on Friday.

Heavy rains have also caused flash floods in Karachi, a neighboring Pakistani port city, resulting in power outages, according to media reports.

Pakistani authorities have warned of possible flash floods in two districts in the southern province of Sindh, which is still recovering from the devastating floods of 2022 that submerged large areas of the country and impacted the economy.