Turkey said Friday it is seeking an international arrest warrant from Interpol for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as part of a domestic criminal case over Israel‘s interception and detention of dozens of activists attempting to deliver humanitarian aid to the besieged Gaza Strip in May.
Archiv: Klagen / Anzeigen / Anträge / Petitionen / lawsuits / petitions / filings
Call for the deployment of an International Protection Force in Sudan
We urgently call for the deployment of a protection force in Sudan to protect and deter attacks against civilians amid the escalating violence between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). A robust force is vital to protect women, children, and at-risk communities, ensuring their safety and facilitating humanitarian aid. Sign the petition and demand deployment of a Protection Force in Sudan now.
Mysterious Attacks on Ecuadorian Fishers Raise Fears of Expanded US Boat Bombings
According to the Times, it was registered to a private company whose address was a UPS store mailbox in Virginia, deepening the mystery over who was operating it—and for whom.
“It would be one thing if the US didn’t have an overt maritime strike campaign, but they do, and they’re posting snuff films of boats going up in flames regularly,” Brian Finucane, a former State Department lawyer who specializes in the laws of war, told the Times.
“And that’s what makes this even more squirrelly,” added Finucane, now a senior adviser in the US Program at the International Crisis Group. “Who are these people that are operating, and under what authority? And they are using a UPS store as their company address? Come on.”
R (on the application of Ammori) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)
Case ID
UKSC/2026/0099
Parties
Appellant(s)
Huda Ammori
Respondent(s)
Secretary of State for the Home Department
Issue
Was the decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to proscribe Palestine Action under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 lawful?
(…)
Full hearing
Start date
4 November 2026
End date
5 November 2026
UK Supreme Court to hear appeal over Palestine Action proscription in November
The UK Supreme Court has confirmed it will hear an appeal by Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori challenging the government’s proscription of the group as a terrorist organization. The hearing is scheduled for November 4-5.
The legal battle stems from the Home Secretary’s decision in July 2025 to ban Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000.
Streit um Corona-Ursprung: US-Senatsausschuss erklärt Fauci schuldig – kommt er jetzt vor Gericht?
Anthony Fauci hat bei einer Anhörung mehr als 100-mal die Aussage verweigert. Nun hat ein republikanisch geführter Senatsausschuss ein Verfahren wegen Missachtung des Kongresses angestossen.
Senate panel votes to hold Fauci in contempt of Congress
Republican chairman Rand Paul has said he will send the committee’s recommendation straight to the Justice Department, bypassing a full Senate vote in a break with precedent that’s likely to set up a high-stakes legal and political test for the Trump administration.
Vice President JD Vance will now first need to sign off on the committee’s circumvention of long-established rules due to his constitutional role as president of the Senate. Then it would be up to the Justice Department to decide whether to bring formal charges.
Rep. Massie Joins Democrats in Attempt To Sue White House Over Iran War
(July 27, 2026)
The War Powers Resolution was passed by both the House and Senate in June, marking the first time Congress approved a concurrent resolution under the 1973 War Powers Act directing the termination of an unauthorized war.
Section 5(c) of the 1973 War Powers Act states that “at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.”
Trump critic Massie joins Democrats in unprecedented bid to sue White House over Iran war
(July 27, 2026)
Massie accused Trump and Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth of being „in blatant violation of two sections of the War Powers Resolution of 1973.“
„For the first time since the law was enacted, a concurrent resolution has passed in accordance with 5(c) of the law, but the White House has ignored it. It seems they’ve assumed the law is unconstitutional, but no court has ever found that to be the case, so the law remains on the books while the White House flouts it. In the 1983 case INS v. Chadha, the Supreme Court did not opine on the 1973 War Powers Resolution. It’s time for the courts to settle this, and that’s what our legislation directs,“ Massie said.
Explainer: Congress backed an Iran war powers resolution. Now what?
(June 9, 2026)
However, legal experts said the issue is not settled law. No concurrent resolution under the 1973 war powers law had passed since the law was enacted.
„The executive branch will likely ignore it on constitutional grounds, and it’s not clear who might have standing to sue to enforce it,“ said Scott Anderson, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and senior editor of the online legal publication Lawfare, although he added that he expected someone would.
NEW: Congress just passed resolutions to block Trump from continuing the Iran War. The resolutions carry the force of law under the text of the 1973 War Powers Act. Now, @RoKhanna tells me he is working to organize lawmakers to bring an historic court case to enforce the law.
(video)
Meeks Statement on Senate Passage of His Iran War Powers Resolution
Washington, DC — Representative Gregory W. Meeks, Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, today issued a statement following the Senate’s approval of his War Powers Resolution which passed the House of Representatives earlier this month. The Senate passed the Resolution 50-48.
Having passed both chambers as a Concurrent Resolution, this measure does not go to the president’s desk for signature. Under the War Powers Resolution, however, it is binding on the president and directs him to cease hostilities against Iran.
“With the Senate passage of my Iran War Powers Resolution, both chambers have now made clear that the president cannot continue this war of choice and must cease all hostilities against Iran. Regardless of what President Trump says, this measure is binding under the War Powers Resolution, and I will explore all legal avenues to ensure the Executive complies with the will of Congress.
War Powers Act, Supreme Court, Democratic Party, filing
(search entries)
The Court Gutted Congress’s War Power. It’s Time to Give It Back.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was designed to restore the constitutional balance in decisions to commit the United States to armed conflict. Its central provision — a legislative veto enabling Congress to direct the withdrawal of American forces by concurrent resolution — was cast into legal doubt by the Supreme Court’s 1983 decision in INS v. Chadha. But Chadha was wrongly decided, its reasoning is exceptionally weak, and the Court’s subsequent embrace of functionalism in separation-of-powers cases has left it incoherent as precedent. As the United States drifts deeply into a congressionally unauthorized war with Iran, the case for overruling Chadha, or at minimum limiting it to its facts, has never been stronger.
War Powers Act, Supreme Court, Democratic Party, filing
(search entries)
Exclusive: Democrats Explore Suing Trump If He Ignores Congress on Iran War
(April 28, 2026)
The emerging discussions mark the clearest sign yet that Democrats, repeatedly blocked in their attempts to restrain the war through floor votes, are searching for new ways to force a constitutional reckoning over who decides when America goes to war.
(…)
While it’s unclear how Republicans will ultimately vote, Schiff urged caution about relying on the courts. “The Supreme Court has been very selective about offering Congress standing to any litigation,” he says. “It‘s not a strategy I would want to rely on…
Digital location data heads back to the Supreme Court
(April 24, 2026)
Background
The Supreme Court last weighed in on the digital Fourth Amendment in 2017. In Carpenter v. United States, the court addressed whether the police had to get a warrant before accessing a certain kind of digital location data, cell-site location information. Cell phones generate CSLI anytime they are on by scanning for the nearest cell tower with strong service. When a cell phone connects to a tower, that tower then records that connection in CSLI logs. A phone’s location can be tracked across time and space by reviewing those logs.
Writing for a 5-4 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts’ Carpenter opinion held that the police must get a warrant before reviewing seven or more days of CSLI for a person’s phone. (…)
Enter: geofence data
Among these unsettled questions is whether police need a warrant to access geofence data, another kind of digital location data. Geofence data generally refers to location information collected by cellphone apps. If you have encountered a prompt on your phone that asks you whether you’d like to allow an app to use your location, you’re likely generating the kind of data at issue in Chatrie. Chatrie specifically involved data generated by a Google service called Location History. In Google’s case, this location information was created by combining information from cell towers but also on GPS, Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth signals.
War Powers Act, Supreme Court, Democratic Party, filing
(search entries)
Justices: Current Members
John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the United States, (…)
Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice, (…)
Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice, (…)
Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice, (…)
Elena Kagan, Associate Justice, (…)
Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice, (…)
Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice, (…)
Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice, (…)
Ketanji Brown Jackson, Associate Justice, (…)
Iran Urges UN to Secure Release of Seized Touska Vessel and Crew
The Iranian envoy, acting on instructions from Tehran, described the operation as a “blatant violation” of legal norms, including the prohibition of aggression, and argued that it displayed characteristics akin to piracy.
He further stated that the incident violated a ceasefire agreement reached on April 8 and amounted to an act of aggression as defined under UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 (1974), warning that it poses a risk to both regional and global stability.
Tehran strongly condemned the U.S. action, calling on the UN Security Council and the secretary-general to adopt a firm and immediate position, explicitly denounce the incident, ensure accountability, and compel Washington to release the vessel, its crew, and all affected individuals without conditions.
Iravani also requested that the letter be formally recorded and circulated as an official document of the UN Security Council.
Suspend EU-Israel Trade Agreement
Send a message and demand the leaders of Germany and Italy support suspending the EU’s trade agreement with Israel. There is no time to lose.
One million Europeans ask the EU to suspend association agreement with Israel for ‚crimes in Gaza‘
(April 15, 2026)
A civil petition calling for the total suspension of the EU–Israel Association Agreement for alleged war crimes has reached one million signatures across all 27 member states.
Under EU rules, the European Commission and the European Parliament must now assess the request.
Lebanon’s MoFA files complaint to UN Security Council regarding Israeli Airstrikes on April 8, 2026
NNA – Lebanon‘s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Emigrants on Wednesday stated in a letter that, „Based on Cabinet Decision No. 14 dated 9/4/2026, it has instructed Lebanon’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations to submit an urgent complaint to the Security Council and the Secretary-General, regarding the Israeli airstrikes on April 8, 2026, which targeted several Lebanese areas, particularly the capital, Beirut. The Ministry also requested that the complaint be circulated as an official document to the General Assembly and the Security Council.“
High Court of Justice Petition Accusing Police of Banning Anti-War Protests
The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), petitions the High Court of Justice, demanding an end to what they claim is an effective ban on political demonstrations during wartime, after police forcefully dispersed several protests against the government this past week. ACRI filed the on behalf of Itamar Greenberg, a student and leading Hadash activist arrested twice in the past weeks for partaking in demonstrations against the Iran war and the recently passed death penalty law.
Statement by Israeli International Law Scholars Concerning Israel’s New “Death Penalty for Terrorists” Law
(March 31, 2026)
1. The undersigned, scholars of international law in Israeli academic institutions, wish to express our outrage and clear condemnation of Israel’s new death penalty law. It is not only immoral and in violation of the most basic dictates of public conscience, but is also unlawful both in terms of domestic constitutional law and Israel’s obligations under international law.
2. Israel is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights from 1966. Under the Covenant it is prohibited to reintroduce the death penalty once abolished – a prohibition which includes, according to the Human Rights Committee’s General Comment 36 (2018), a ban on extending the list of crimes to which the death penalty applies or relaxing associated procedural safeguards, even for states that have not formally abolished the death penalty. As long as the death penalty is applicable, legal proceedings relating to its imposition must meet all due process safeguards, including the right to seek commutation of the death sentence. The right to commutation is also guaranteed in the Fourth Geneva Convention from 1949. Furthermore, under the Covenant, States must act towards abolition of the death penalty, and in no case may the death penalty be imposed in a discriminatory manner.