General

Sharjah Misdemeanor Court has sentenced an Arab man to one month in prison, followed by deportation, after finding him guilty of blasphemy during a heated telephone conversation.

According to the case records, the incident began when the accused and the complainant became involved in a dispute during a telephone call. The argument escalated into a verbal altercation, during which the accused allegedly uttered insulting phrases against God and repeated them several times despite the complainant objecting.

The complainant subsequently reported the matter to the police and submitted an audio recording of the telephone conversation as evidence.

Following the complaint, the competent authorities initiated legal proceedings and referred the accused to the courts.

When confronted with the charge, the defendant did not deny making the statements. Instead, he told the court that he had been angry and agitated during the argument and that his conduct had not been intentional.

After examining the case file, the evidence submitted and the defendant's statements and defence, the court found him guilty. It sentenced him to one month in prison, to be followed by deportation from the UAE.

What Does UAE Law Say About Blasphemy?

Blasphemy is treated as a criminal offence under UAE federal legislation, with the law protecting religious beliefs, sacred figures, religious books and places of worship.

The UAE's Federal Law by Decree No. 34 of 2023 on Combating Discrimination, Hatred and Extremism expressly defines blasphemy as any act that insults the Divine Essence, religions, prophets, messengers, divine books or houses of worship. The law also states that freedom of opinion and expression cannot be invoked to justify statements or acts that constitute blasphemy or cause harm in violation of its provisions.

The legislation applies to different forms of expression, including speaking, writing, drawing, pointing, photography, singing, acting and gestures. This means that conduct potentially falling within the definition is not limited to written or online material.

Penalties can be severe. Under the 2023 law, certain offences involving contempt of or incitement against religions can attract imprisonment and fines ranging from Dh250,000 to Dh2 million, depending on the nature of the offence. The law also provides for enhanced penalties in aggravated circumstances, including where an offence leads to a breach of public peace.

The UAE's Crimes and Penalties Law also contains provisions dealing with offences against religious beliefs and rites. Article 362 provides penalties for offending Islamic sacred beliefs or rites, insulting recognised divine religions, or approving, instigating or promoting sin. Where such an offence is committed publicly, the law provides for imprisonment of at least one year and/or a fine of at least Dh100,000.

There are also specific provisions dealing with blasphemous conduct carried out through electronic means. Federal Decree-Law No. 34 of 2021 on Countering Rumours and Cybercrimes provides penalties for using information networks, information technology or websites to offend Islamic sanctities or rituals, insult recognised monotheistic religions or commit other specified religious offences. Where the conduct involves an insult to the Divine Essence or the prophets and messengers, the law provides for temporary imprisonment of up to seven years.

These provisions operate alongside the UAE Constitution. Article 7 establishes Islam as the official religion of the UAE and states that Islamic Sharia is a main source of legislation. At the same time, Article 30 guarantees freedom of opinion and expression within the limits provided by law, while Article 32 guarantees freedom of religious worship subject to public policy and public morals.

The Sharjah case therefore highlights an important distinction under UAE law: freedom of expression is recognised, but it is subject to statutory restrictions protecting religions, religious symbols and public order. The precise offence and applicable penalty depend on the nature of the conduct, the circumstances in which it occurred and the legislation under which the prosecution is brought.

In the present case, the court considered the evidence, including the recorded telephone conversation and the accused's own response to the allegation, before reaching its decision. The judgment demonstrates that statements made during a private dispute can still result in criminal proceedings where they fall within the scope of UAE laws protecting religious sanctities.

Christian metal band Demon Hunter has sued Netflix and concert promoter AEG Presents in a California federal court, alleging that an upcoming concert tour based on the streaming platform’s hit film KPop Demon Hunters infringes its trademarks.

The band said in a lawsuit that the recent announcement of a tour based on Netflix’s hit animated film had created consumer confusion and threatened to “eclipse” its brand.

“Simply put, Netflix is no more entitled to use the mark KPOP DEMON HUNTERS than it would be to launch a recording artist, live touring show and merchandise under the marks KPOP METALLICA, KPOP U2 or KPOP BLACK SABBATH,” the lawsuit said.

Netflix responded in a statement on Wednesday, saying the allegations were “without merit”. “We look forward to vigorously defending this matter,” Netflix said.

Demon Hunter was formed in Seattle in 2000. The band released its most recent album last year and is due to embark on a US tour in October.

Netflix released KPop Demon Hunters, an animated film about a Korean K-pop group that secretly fights demons, in June 2025. According to Netflix, it became the streaming platform’s most-watched film ever and won Academy Awards for Best Animated Feature and Best Original Song. Netflix announced a partnership with AEG in May for a tour based on the film.

Demon Hunter’s lawsuit said the defendants’ ventures were likely to cause confusion and drown the band out of the marketplace. The band said it had already received a refund request from a parent who accidentally bought tickets to one of its concerts instead of the KPop Demon Hunters tour. It also said it had received an email from an Inside Edition producer seeking an interview with one of the film’s songwriters.

“As a result of Defendants’ willful misconduct,” the band “now faces an existential crisis, thereby necessitating the filing of this action”, it said in the complaint.

Demon Hunter asked the court to block the use of “KPop Demon Hunters” in connection with music or merchandise or to promote live concerts. It is also seeking an unspecified amount in monetary damages.

The case is Hyde Lane Inc. d/b/a Demon Hunter v. Netflix Inc., US District Court for the Central District of California, No. 2:26-cv-09191.

The Abu Dhabi Judicial Department (ADJD) has recorded significant growth in the use of alternative penalties to imprisonment for minor offences, with electronic monitoring orders rising by an average of 170 per cent and community service measures increasing by 83.5 per cent between 2023 and 2025.

Counsellor Yousef Saeed Al Abri, ADJD Undersecretary, said the results reflected the vision of His Highness Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Vice President, Deputy Prime Minister, Chairman of the Presidential Court and Chairman of the ADJD, to develop an integrated judicial and correctional system aligned with international best practice. He said the approach sought to balance punishment with rehabilitation and support the successful reintegration of offenders into society.

The figures were presented at a regular meeting of the ADJD’s Committee on Correctional and Rehabilitation Policies, chaired by the Undersecretary. The committee reviewed performance indicators showing continued expansion in the use of alternative penalties, particularly community service measures.

Under the programme, individuals convicted of non-serious offences may be required to perform community service instead of serving custodial sentences. The ADJD said the increasing use of such measures demonstrated their value as a tool for behavioural rehabilitation while providing an alternative to imprisonment for appropriate cases.

The committee also reviewed developments in the electronic monitoring system, which uses technology to track offenders’ locations. The system operates under a strategic partnership with Abu Dhabi Police and forms part of efforts to introduce advanced technological solutions to support the justice and correctional system.

According to the ADJD, alternative penalties have contributed to strengthening rehabilitation and helping offenders reintegrate into society, while also supporting wider objectives relating to public safety and community stability.

The meeting concluded with the committee commending the efforts of strategic partners and relevant institutions. It stressed that continued co-operation would be essential to expanding effective rehabilitation measures, advancing the objectives of the judicial system and further strengthening community safety and stability.

The US Justice Department has told a federal judge that President Donald Trump’s administration cannot be compelled to identify advisers involved in a White House crackdown on major law firms, arguing that the information is protected by executive privilege over presidential communications.

In a filing in federal court in Washington, the administration’s lawyers formally asserted executive privilege in response to an order from US District Judge Amir Ali. The order would require the White House to identify individuals involved in drafting, reviewing and approving executive orders issued last year targeting law firms and lawyers.

The American Bar Association (ABA) is seeking the records as part of a lawsuit filed last year. The lawyers’ group alleges that the Trump administration adopted an unlawful policy of targeting law firms and lawyers based on their legal work, hiring practices, diversity policies and political affiliations.

Four law firms won court orders last year permanently blocking enforcement of Trump’s executive orders against them. The Trump administration’s appeals in those cases are pending. Nine other firms reached agreements with the White House to avoid similar measures, while pledging to provide nearly $1 billion in free legal services to causes supported by the administration.

The Justice Department argued that disclosing the names of advisers involved in the executive orders would intrude on presidential decision-making, raise separation-of-powers concerns and potentially discourage advisers from giving candid advice to the President.

“Such advice provided to the President and his close advisers constitute the core of the presidential communications privilege,” the Justice Department told the court.

Courts have interpreted Article II of the US Constitution as providing a qualified privilege over certain White House communications, aimed at preserving the independence of the executive branch.

The administration’s lawyers cited a 2004 US Supreme Court decision involving former Vice-President Dick Cheney, then White House Vice-President, which they said limits the scope of evidence-gathering involving the White House.

In its filing, the government said it was not withholding information that was already public, including material contained in official statements and White House social media posts.

The case is American Bar Association v. Executive Office of the President, US District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 1:25-cv-01888-AHA.

The US Supreme Court has for a second time declined to hear President Donald Trump’s appeal against a $5 million civil verdict in favour of E. Jean Carroll, after a jury found him liable for sexually abusing and defaming the former magazine columnist.

The justices rejected Trump’s request on Monday to reconsider their previous decision in June denying his appeal against the 2023 jury verdict. The case arose from Carroll’s allegation that Trump raped her in the 1990s in a dressing room at a Manhattan department store. Trump’s lawyers have argued that the trial was unfair.

The court’s order was unsigned and gave no explanation. The Supreme Court rarely grants requests for reconsideration.

The justices are also considering Trump’s appeal against a separate $83.3 million jury verdict for defaming Carroll in 2019, during his first term as president. Trump had denied her allegations and said she had lied. In that appeal, his lawyers argue that presidential immunity protects him from Carroll’s claims and that lower courts wrongly ruled that he had forfeited that defence.

Trump has been embroiled in legal battles with Carroll since she published an excerpt from her memoir in 2019 alleging that he raped her around 1996 in a dressing room at the Bergdorf Goodman department store in Manhattan.

Trump denied Carroll’s claims in 2019 and again in 2022, when he was out of office, and accused her of lying about the allegations.

The case resulting in the $5 million verdict concerned Trump’s statements in 2022, when he described Carroll’s claim as a “hoax” and a “con job” in a social media post. Jurors in 2023 found that Trump had sexually abused Carroll and defamed her, but did not find that he had raped her, as she had alleged.

“We are pleased that the United States Supreme Court has declined again to hear this case,” Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan, said in a statement.

“As a result, the jury’s unanimous verdict that Donald Trump sexually assaulted and then defamed E. Jean Carroll is now final and cannot be challenged in any court,” Kaplan said.

After the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s appeal in June, Carroll collected nearly $5.63 million from Trump. The amount included the original $5 million civil verdict plus interest.

In his request for rehearing, Trump’s lawyers argued that the issue of presidential immunity raised in the case involving the $83.3 million verdict, which the justices could still decide to hear, could also affect the 2023 verdict.

The Supreme Court ruled in a landmark 2024 decision that former presidents have full immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken in office that fall within their core constitutional powers as president. The Carroll cases, however, are civil lawsuits.

 The Abu Dhabi Family, Civil and Administrative Cases Court has ordered a motorist to pay Dh18,000 in compensation to a vehicle owner whose car suffered extensive damage in a traffic accident caused by the driver's negligence.

According to court records, the accident occurred when the defendant failed to remain within his designated lane, resulting in a collision with the claimant's vehicle. An official traffic accident report established that the defendant was responsible for the crash.

The court heard that the damaged vehicle was not insured at the time of the accident. The defendant subsequently attempted to arrange repairs, but estimates obtained by the owner showed that the cost would be almost twice the vehicle's market value. The repairs were therefore considered economically unviable, effectively leaving the vehicle a total loss.

The owner filed a civil lawsuit seeking Dh25,000, representing the estimated market value of the damaged vehicle. He also sought legal interest of 5 per cent from the date of filing until full payment, in addition to Dh5,000 for the financial and moral harm he said he had suffered. He further requested court fees and legal expenses.

After examining the evidence, including the traffic accident report and documents submitted by both parties, the court ruled partially in favour of the claimant.

It ordered the defendant to pay Dh18,000 in compensation for the damaged vehicle and to bear the applicable legal costs in accordance with the judgment.

Luigi Mangione has pleaded guilty in a federal case over the fatal shooting of UnitedHealth Group executive Brian Thompson in December 2024.

Mangione, 28, admitted on Friday to two counts of stalking and to shooting Thompson outside an investor conference at a hotel in midtown Manhattan. He did not reach a plea deal with prosecutors and faces a maximum sentence of life in prison.

“On the morning of December 4, 2024, I shot Mr Thompson in Manhattan and he died,” Mangione said in New York federal court. “When I did, I understood my actions would place him in fear of death or bodily injury. I knew what I was doing was illegal.”

The guilty plea is Mangione’s first admission of wrongdoing. He fled Manhattan after the shooting, triggering a major manhunt that ended five days later when he was arrested at a McDonald’s in central Pennsylvania.

Until now, Mangione had remained defiant and attracted the support of thousands of online followers, as well as dozens of supporters who attended his court appearances. Some also expressed anger at the US healthcare system.

“There can be no celebrity in assassination,” Jamie McDonald, US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, said at a press conference after the hearing. “Mangione attempted to send a public message through violence. But the message that emerges today is very different.”

Mangione was brought into the courtroom wearing beige prison fatigues, with his hands cuffed behind his back. During the hearing, which lasted about 30 minutes, he was asked to describe his actions.

Mangione read from a prepared statement, saying that after years of suffering severe pain from a broken back and navigating obstacles within the healthcare system, he learned that UnitedHealth would hold its annual investor conference in New York in December 2024 and that company executives would attend.

Thompson, 50, was chief executive of UnitedHealthcare, the insurance division of UnitedHealth Group.

Mangione said he travelled from out of state to Manhattan with the intention of killing Thompson and was armed with a 3D-printed gun equipped with a silencer. He told the court that he had emailed the company’s leaders while posing as an investor at a firm managing more than $50 billion in assets and requested information about the conference. He said he received a response within an hour.

Asked for comment, UnitedHealth did not address Mangione’s remarks. In a statement, the company said: “We are grateful to law enforcement for bringing Brian’s murderer to justice.”

Dominic Gentile, a federal prosecutor, outlined some of the evidence against Mangione. He said video footage showed Mangione arriving in New York by bus on November 24, 2024, and following Thompson “in and around” the conference hotel on December 3.

Video also showed Mangione shooting Thompson and fleeing the scene, while a 9mm gun recovered from Mangione after his arrest matched shell casings found at the scene of the killing, Gentile said.

Police also recovered fingerprints and DNA evidence matching Mangione, along with writings that expressed a willingness to kill a healthcare executive, specifically at UnitedHealthcare, Gentile said.

State case

Mangione also faces a trial next month in New York state court, where he is charged with second-degree murder and other offences. If convicted, he faces 25 years to life in prison.

Following the federal hearing, Mangione’s attorneys filed a motion seeking dismissal of the state case. They argued that New York law prohibits defendants from being prosecuted twice for the same crime, even when the charges are different.

“While federal sentencing is pending, we are prepared to litigate the defence motions,” a spokesperson for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said in a statement. The office “remains committed to seeking justice for Mr Thompson and his family”.

US District Judge Margaret Garnett, who presided over Friday’s hearing, said any sentence Mangione receives could be added to whatever sentence is imposed by the state. She set a sentencing date for December 18.

During the hearing, Garnett asked Gentile about sentencing guidelines that could assist her in determining an appropriate sentence. Gentile said the advisory range was roughly 24 to 30 years in prison.

However, prosecutors said after the hearing that they would recommend a life sentence. The judge said she would make her own decision.

Mangione, a University of Pennsylvania graduate and former data engineer, had initially pleaded not guilty in both cases.

Thompson’s family attended the hearing. One woman began to cry when Mangione entered the courtroom, while another relative consoled her and said: “You’ve got this.”

“Today’s guilty plea marks an important step toward justice for Brian and for our family,” the Thompson family said in a statement. “While nothing will ease the pain of losing him, we are grateful that the federal justice system has held the person responsible for this heinous act accountable. Now we look to the court to ensure that sentencing reflects the severity of this crime.”

A federal judge on Tuesday blocked the US Postal Service (USPS) from implementing part of President Donald Trump's executive order aimed at tightening rules on mail-in voting ahead of November's elections, which will determine control of Congress.

The ruling by US District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston marked the latest setback for Trump's efforts to expand the federal government's role in overseeing elections.

Trump, a Republican, signed the executive order in March after years of calling for tighter rules on voting by mail and promoting the false claim that his defeat in the 2020 presidential election was the result of widespread voter fraud.

The executive order called on states to provide lists of eligible voters who could receive mail-in ballots. If states failed to comply, the USPS would have been required to refuse to deliver the ballots.

White House spokesperson Lauren Bis said in a statement: "The entire Trump Administration will continue lawfully enacting the agenda President Trump was elected to enact – which includes the safety and security of American elections."

Tuesday's decision effectively expanded on an earlier order Talwani issued in June that prevented the Trump administration from implementing the measure in 23 mostly Democratic-led states.

Several voting rights groups represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had asked the judge to go further and bar the USPS from implementing the order anywhere in the country.

In granting the plaintiffs' request, Talwani, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, wrote that the federal executive branch had no authority to regulate elections, a responsibility that the US Constitution assigns to individual states.

"The (executive order) is presently causing confusion and threatening both increasing chaos and an erosion of trust in our democracy," Talwani wrote. "Enfranchisement heavily outweighs the executive's attempt to unconstitutionally insert itself into the domain of election regulation."

Sophia Lin Lakin, a voting rights lawyer with the ACLU, said in a statement: "Today's ruling sends another necessary message to an administration that continues to weaponise portions of the government to sow chaos into our elections."

Trump Seeks Supreme Court Review

The Trump administration has asked the US Supreme Court to put Talwani's earlier decision on hold, arguing that the states' case was premature because federal agencies had not yet finalised plans to implement Trump's order.

The top US court, where conservative justices hold a 6-3 majority, has not yet ruled on the request.

In a similar case brought by the Democratic Party in a federal court in Washington, DC, a judge in May declined to immediately block the executive order, finding that doing so would be premature because the USPS had not yet issued its rule. An appeals court later affirmed that decision.

A man has been sentenced to one year in prison and ordered to be deported from the UAE after being convicted of stealing Dh75,000 from shared accommodation in Sharjah and attempting a second theft.

The Sharjah Misdemeanours Court sentenced the defendant to six months in prison for theft and a further six months for attempted theft, with deportation to follow after he completes his sentence.

According to court records, the case began after a resident reported that Dh75,000 had gone missing from his room. The money belonged to the company he worked for and had been kept temporarily before being deposited into the company’s account, Al Khaleej daily reported.

After discovering the cash was missing, the complainant reviewed CCTV footage from the accommodation to identify the person responsible.

The recordings also showed another resident attempting to enter a different room in what appeared to be a separate theft attempt, prompting suspicions about his involvement.

The footage was handed to investigators, who subsequently linked the defendant to both the theft of the Dh75,000 and the attempted theft captured on camera.

The defendant denied both charges during the trial. However, after examining the evidence, the court found him guilty of theft and attempted theft and sentenced him to a total of 12 months in prison, followed by deportation from the UAE.

A US judge dismissed criminal charges against Indian billionaire Gautam Adani, but said the Justice Department’s decision to abandon the fraud and bribery case was concerning.

Brooklyn-based US District Judge Nicholas Garaufis granted federal prosecutors’ rare request to dismiss the case after questioning their reasons for doing so, including whether Adani’s November 2024 pledge to invest $10 billion in the United States had influenced the decision.

The Justice Department’s move marked the latest instance in which federal prosecutors have sought to drop a high-profile white-collar criminal prosecution during Republican President Donald Trump’s second term in office.

In dismissing the charges against Adani, Garaufis said he was satisfied that the investment pledge had not influenced the Justice Department’s decision. He also acknowledged that judges have a limited role in reviewing federal prosecutors’ decisions to drop criminal charges.

However, he criticised Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter for working with Adani’s defence lawyers on the decision to dismiss the charges without input from the prosecutors or agents who had investigated the case.

“The irregularities in the decision to dismiss the indictment are concerning,” Garaufis wrote. “McCotter appears to have eschewed the professional opinions of innumerable officials from various federal offices and replaced them with his singular judgment.”

A Justice Department spokesperson referred to a July 4 filing in which McCotter said he had decided to drop the charges after meeting defence lawyers and other Justice Department lawyers and conducting his own research and analysis.

In a statement posted on X, Adani said: “I welcome the US Court’s decision with humility and deep respect for the judicial process.”

The judge said his dismissal of the case should not be interpreted as agreement with the Justice Department’s decision to drop the charges or as an opinion on the merits of the case. He asked the Justice Department to provide more information before he decides whether to dismiss charges against additional defendants.

Adani was charged in 2024 with agreeing to bribe Indian government officials so that a subsidiary of the Adani Group could win approval to develop a solar energy plant. He was also accused of misleading US investors by providing reassuring information about his company’s anti-corruption practices. Adani Group has consistently denied wrongdoing.

Adani himself has not appeared in a US court to respond to the charges.

In the July 4 court filing, McCotter said the case was primarily foreign, difficult to prove and inconsistent with the agency’s current priorities.

In a separate resolution of civil charges brought by the US Securities and Exchange Commission, Adani agreed to pay $6 million, while his nephew, Sagar Adani, agreed to pay $12 million.

Adani Enterprises Limited has separately agreed to pay $275 million to the US Treasury Department to settle alleged violations of Iran sanctions.

In the filing, McCotter also denied what he described as media reports suggesting that he had sought to dismiss the case partly because of Adani’s pledge to invest in the United States.

In a sworn declaration filed in court on July 15, Adani acknowledged that he had previously pledged to invest $10 billion in the US and said his lawyers had told the Justice Department during meetings that the pledge “might be part of a resolution of these matters”.

Robert Giuffra, a lawyer for Adani, said in a July 15 court declaration that the defendants had told the Justice Department that the Adani Group was “amenable” to following through on the investment pledge as part of a resolution of the case.

Garaufis wrote that he took “no position on the ultimate propriety of Mr Giuffra’s repeat attempts to resolve this bribery case with monetary offers”.

“It is up to the public to decide what effect offers of this kind have on the equal administration of justice and the rule of law,” the judge wrote.