Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

A federal judge in the United States has dismissed a Department of Justice lawsuit seeking to access voter data from Rhode Island. The decision on Friday was the latest loss for the administration of President Donald Trump, which has sought to access voter data in dozens of states across the country.In the ruling, US District Court Judge Mary McElroy sided with election officials and civil rights groups, writing that the Justice Department does not have the authority “to conduct the kind of fishing expedition it seeks here”. Rhode Island Secretary of State Gregg Amore praised the ruling in a statement afterwards, highlighting the importance of state rights and the balance of power in the US democratic republic.The Justice Department has sued at least 30 states for their voter information, maintaining it needs the information to secure election security. However, state officials have expressed concerns over privacy, and federal judges have rejected similar attempts in California, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Oregon. At least 12 states have willingly provided or pledged to provide voter information to the Trump administration.The push for voter information is one of several actions that have raised concerns over how the Trump administration will approach the midterm elections in November, which will decide the makeup of the US Congress. Trump is currently calling on Republicans to pass the so-called SAVE America Act, a bill that would create higher documentation standards for voters to prove their citizenship when registering to vote and casting ballots.

BackgroundOn 2026-04-13, IBM entered a $17 million settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).The DOJ alleged IBM considered "race, color, national origin, or sex" in hiring and promotions and misused government‑contract funds for DEI initiatives.Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi had urged the DOJ to target illegal DEI programs in companies receiving federal money.Settlement DetailsIBM denied wrongdoing; the settlement is not an admission of liability.The payment resolves claims that IBM used contract funds for DEI programs and then sought reimbursement.This marks the first enforcement action under the DOJ’s Civil Rights Fraud Initiative, which targets recipients of federal funds who violate civil‑rights laws.Strategic ImpactThe $17 million fine represents roughly 0.03% of IBM’s FY2025 revenue of about $60 billion, indicating a modest direct financial hit but a significant reputational signal. The settlement may prompt IBM and other federal contractors to reassess DEI budgeting and compliance frameworks to avoid future litigation.Analysts view the case as a bellwether for how the DOJ will enforce civil‑rights compliance in the private sector, especially for firms that rely on government contracts.

Former Democratic nominee Kamala Harris has hinted at a potential run for the 2028 presidential election, following her loss to Donald Trump in the 2024 race.Speaking at the National Action Network's annual convention, Harris, a former vice president, acknowledged the possibility of a future bid, stating, "I might, I might. I'm thinking about it", in response to a question from civil rights leader Al Sharpton.Harris emphasized her previous experience in the White House, serving as second-in-command to President Joe Biden from 2021 to 2025, and being a heartbeat away from the presidency.She also highlighted her historic nomination as the first Black and South Asian woman to receive a major party nomination in US history.Despite Trump's landslide victory in the 2024 election, Harris's popular vote share was significant, with 48.3% of the overall vote, compared to Trump's 49.8%.Harris's remarks also took aim at Trump's track record, criticizing his aggressive postures and questioning his reliability as a partner to US allies.While Harris left the subject of a 2028 bid on an ambiguous note, she expressed her consideration for the American people, stating, "I'm thinking about it in the context of then: Who and where and how can the best job be done for the American people?"

Ten Muslim civil rights groups have issued a joint letter condemning the arrest of Salah Sarsour, a Palestinian American community leader in Wisconsin, by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. Sarsour, the president of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee and a vocal Palestinian advocate, was reportedly pulled over by 10 federal agents while driving on March 30.The groups, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Legal Fund of America, expressed concern that Sarsour was being targeted due to his Palestinian and Muslim background. They noted that his detention reflects a troubling trend of targeting immigrant activists, scholars, and foreign students who have been critical of Israeli oppression.Sarsour, a lawful permanent resident who has lived in the US for 32 years, was transferred to a detention facility in Illinois, then to Indiana, leaving his family “scrambling to determine his whereabouts”. His wife and children are all US citizens.The groups have launched an online campaign for Sarsour’s legal defence, which has earned over $35,500 in donations as of Thursday afternoon.The arrest has been widely condemned by officials in Wisconsin, including local alderpersons JoCasta Zamarripa and Alex Bower, who called the situation a “nightmare”. State Senator Chris Larson also expressed concern, stating that the federal government has yet to offer any reasons publicly for Sarsour’s arrest.The Trump administration has taken a hardline approach to pro-Palestinian activism, with Trump pledging to crack down on protesters denouncing human rights abuses during Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza if he were re-elected in 2024.

The Israeli parliament's approval of a legislation seeking the death penalty for Palestinians convicted of deadly attacks has stoked fears among Palestinians and drawn condemnation from the international community. The law, which does not apply to Jewish citizens of Israel, has been met with jubilation among its backers in the country's far right.France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom have all raised concerns over the overtly racist nature of the bill, whose wording appears to exclusively target Palestinians. Rights groups have also criticized the bill, with Amnesty International saying it would make the death penalty 'another discriminatory tool in Israel's system of apartheidThe law targets Palestinians by limiting its application to military courts that only try Palestinians under occupation. Under the new legislation, anyone found guilty of killing an Israeli citizen within the occupied West Bank will, by default, be sentenced to death by the military courts. In contrast, Israeli settlers who kill Palestinians in the occupied West Bank are tried in civilian courts in Israel and have not been prosecuted since the start of this decade.Critics argue that the law is discriminatory by design and that lawmakers have no legal authority to impose it on Palestinians living in the occupied West Bank, who are not Israeli citizens. The Association of Civil Rights in Israel has taken the matter to Israel's highest court, arguing that the measure undermines Israel's commitments to democratic principles.Human rights groups have long argued that the legal systems applying to Palestinians and Israeli settlers in the West Bank are fundamentally unequal, enabling discriminatory detention practices and selective enforcement of laws. Approximately 9,500 Palestinians are currently detained in Israeli prisons under harsh conditions, with about half held under administrative detention or labeled 'unlawful combatants,' denied trial and unable to defend themselves.

Israel's parliament, the Knesset, has passed a controversial bill that will instruct military courts to impose the death penalty on Palestinians convicted of killing Israelis in acts of 'terror'. The law, which enters into effect within 30 days, was approved by 62 lawmakers, with 48 voting against it and one abstention.The new law targets only West Bank Palestinians, who are not Israeli citizens, and instructs military courts to impose the draconian sentence for lethal attacks on Israelis. Amichai Cohen, a senior fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute's Center for Democratic Values and Institutions, noted that 'Jews will not be indicted under this law'.The Palestinian Authority called the bill 'a war crime against the Palestinian people', saying that it breached the Fourth Geneva Convention. Rights group B'Tselem pointed out that the conviction rate for Palestinians tried in military courts is about 96 percent, with many convictions based on 'confessions' obtained through pressure and torture during interrogations.The law has been condemned by international critics, including the foreign ministers of France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom, and Amnesty International, which said it would make the death penalty 'another discriminatory tool in Israel's system of apartheid'. The Association of Civil Rights in Israel has filed a petition with Israel's Supreme Court to challenge the law, describing it as 'discriminatory by design' and 'enacted without legal authority'.

The connection between boxing and cinema dates back to the early days of film, with the first sports film being a 1894 short of a six-round match between Mike Leonard and Jack Cushing. Since then, boxing has been a staple of the big screen, captivating audiences with its high-stakes emotion, physical intensity, and personal turbulence.The British Film Institute's new season, The Cinematic Life of Boxing, curated by Clive Chijioke Nwonka, an amateur boxer since his childhood in London, explores this symbiotic relationship. Nwonka believes that an uncompromising hunt for realism is central to the relationship between the sport and artform, with films that interact with human experience, poverty, struggle, triumph, and boxing as a way of life.Boxing films often capture a political zeitgeist, as seen in the 1974 'Rumble in the Jungle' heavyweight championship match between Muhammad Ali and George Foreman, which was not just a fight but a referendum on ideology during the civil rights era. This fight was documented in the 1996 film When We Were Kings, described by Nwonka as 'probably the greatest sports documentary of all time'.The Rocky franchise, which has spanned six films and a spin-off series, Creed, under the direction of Ryan Coogler, is a barometer for all the films captured in its wake. The first film remains the hallmark of sporting cinema, successfully capturing the habitual experience of the sport outside its more glamorous moments.Despite the genre's popularity, boxing films are not immune to clichés, with many relying on stock characters and familiar arcs. However, the best film-makers are able to return to the core of these films: the stakes of signing up for a fight, and the physical, psychological, and real monetary costs of endurance.