A Louisiana prison committed one of the most obvious violations of a man’s religious liberty that has ever made its way to the Supreme Court.
South
Flyer asks social media users if you can buy 2 airline seats to avoid sitting next to strangers
A traveler took to social media to ask whether passengers could purchase an additional airplane seat next to them.
Posted in the “r/SouthwestAirlines” forum, the user’s comment said, “People keep ‘saving’ the seat next to them because they don’t want anyone to sit there. Is it technically possible to buy another seat, not customer of size, just so you don’t have to sit next to someone[?]”
The user went on, “Maybe people buying an extra seat will stop the purses, jackets, blankets, etc. on the seat next to someone?”
FLIGHT PASSENGER WARNS TRAVELERS TO ‘ALWAYS SCREENSHOT YOUR BOARDING PASS’: HERE’S WHY
Fellow Redditors took to the comments section to share their thoughts about purchasing an extra seat.
“You cannot have two tickets in your name,” one user wrote.
A flight passenger asked social media users whether they can purchase an additional seat on a Southwest Airlines flight so they do not have someone sitting next to them. (iStock)
“One will be automatically canceled before your flight,” the person added.
‘SEAT SQUATTERS’ ON PLANES ARE LATEST TRAVEL TREND TAKING OVER SOCIAL MEDIA
“Take up a musical instrument, one too large for the overhead but not too large for the seat. You’ll still have someone sitting next to you on one side, but your instrument will get a nice view from its window seat,” a user advised.
Social media users weighed in on whether a flyer can purchase an additional seat. (iStock)
One user said, “No, you can not do that on most airlines. Only if you actually need 2 seats.”
For more Lifestyle articles, visit foxnews.com/lifestyle
Another added, “Nope. With it being open seating. You’re getting someone [sitting] next to you.”
The traveler said he or she would be willing to buy an additional seat if an airline allows. (iStock)
Southwest Airlines has an open-air policy allowing passengers to select their own seats upon boarding based on the assigned group.
Under the help center on Southwest’s website, there is a page sharing information for customers of size.
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR LIFESTYLE NEWSLETTER
“Customers who encroach upon any part of the neighboring seat(s) may proactively purchase the needed number of seats prior to travel to ensure the additional seat(s) is available,” it says.
It also says, “Southwest will refund the extra seat purchased upon request. After travel is complete, please request your refund.”
The site does not define the requirements to be considered a customer of size.
Southwest allows “customers of size” to purchase an additional seat. (iStock)
Southwest announced this year that it will be launching an assigned seating model.
“We will begin selling flights with seat assignments in the second half of 2025 for travel in the first half of 2026,” the airline’s site states under the “What’s New” page.
DELTA PASSENGER SHARES RARE MOVE MADE BY GATE AGENT WHO ALTERED SEAT ASSIGNMENTS ON FLIGHT
American Airlines’ website includes a section for customers interested in “extra space during travel.”
“If you need more than one seat to travel comfortably and safely, you must book an additional seat by calling Reservations. Please inform us of your seating needs when booking your trip,” the airline’s site states.
Delta Air Lines also offers information about purchasing an extra seat.
“A customer may purchase an extra seat for each flight in the itinerary,” Delta’s website says.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
“The seat will be sold at the same fare when purchased at the same time.”
“Customers who do not purchase the extra seat in advance risk the need to change seat assignments to another location on the aircraft that provides additional space. In the event of a full flight, customers will be rebooked for a later flight with available seating,” the site continued.
Fox News Digital reached out to Southwest, American Airlines and Delta for comment.
The Kentucky Wildcats are getting ready to start a new era of their football program. In his 13 seasons as head coach, we have all become accustomed to seeing Mark Stoops teams at Kentucky play a certain way. This has been both on defense and on offense, the Wildcats have had a similar blueprint of winning games and finding success. Now, both sides of the ball will look a lot different in terms of scheme, so we will start on the defensive side and what differences you will see in 2026 under new coach Will Stein.
Old: Conservative 3-4
Mark Stoops and defensive coordinator Brad White had a lot of success in their 3-4 defense with a conservative play style, but it had plenty of weaknesses as well. With a nose tackle head up on the center and two defensive lineman playing on the inside shoulder of each offensive tackle, the defense would create pressure but couldn’t consistently finish to make them sacks. This defense required a guy like Joshua Hines-Allen to win one-on-one blocks on the edge in a dominant fashion to thrive as a defense. Since 2020, Kentucky finished top five in total sacks in the SEC just once, in 2023; every other team finished ninth or less in the conference in team sacks.
This conservative 3-4 defense allowed Kentucky to stay in similar personnel throughout the game. The conservative nature had a bend-don’t-break philosophy of keeping everything in front and making tackles. Kentucky rarely switched things up and rolled the dice with blitzes or had pre and post snap coverage rotations on the back end. It was cover 3 and cover 4 heavy, while not disguising coverages and typically sending four pass rushers at the quarterback.
New: Aggressive 4-2-5
The new scheme under defensive coordinator Jay Bateman will be the entire opposite of the old regime. This scheme will be primarily out of an even front, and we have highlighted current players on the team that will benefit from a change in technique. Mi’Quise Humphrey-Grace will switch to a traditional edge rusher lining up outside of the offensive tackle, whereas Tavion Gadson will move to a true three technique on the outside shoulder of the offensive guard and both of these players played in the same technique in the previous scheme. Both Humphrey-Grace and Gadson should have more production moving to techniques they more accurately fit.
Kentucky’s defense will utilize five defensive backs for a majority of snaps, which is beneficial with most offenses living in 11 personnel with three wide receivers on the field. This scheme’s success in year one will heavily rely upon the experienced safety duo of Ty Bryant and Jordan Castell. Coach Bateman will have a lot more safety rotations in this scheme and switch up coverages a lot, disguising a particular coverage pre-snap before switching it post-snap. This defense will have a ton of eye candy to try and keep offenses off balance.
This aggressive scheme will not only roll the dice more on passing downs, playing more man coverage. However, it will also be more aggressive in terms of blitzing the quarterback or sending simulated pressures. Simulated pressures are shown as four defensive lineman rushing, but one will drop into coverage with a back seven player blitzing, still sending four at the quarterback while finding creative ways to do so. This amount of disguise and blitzing can create more havoc in the passing game, but it can also allow players to get out of position in the run game.
This schematic change will greatly benefit Kentucky against pass heavy teams, but it remains to be seen how that will be a benefit or a detriment to the run defense. In theory, this scheme should be able to create more havoc plays like sacks and tackles for loss, which can also provide more turnovers. Will Stein mentioned in a press conference, as an offensive minded coach, he wants to steal possessions on defense to get the ball back for his offense. This aggressive style is built towards a common theme of the new regime, which is they will try to win football games on offense rather than on defense.
Damon Landor is a Rastafari who, for religious reasons, does not cut his hair — according to his lawyers, he kept this vow for more than two decades, until his dreadlocks grew nearly long enough to reach his knees. But then, in 2020, while he was serving a five-month sentence for a drug-related offense, prison officials handcuffed him to a chair, held him down, and shaved his head.
Incredibly, when Landor was transferred to the prison where this forced shaving occurred, he brought with him a copy of a federal appeals court decision, which held that it violates federal religious liberty law for Louisiana prisons to cut the hair of Rastafari prisoners, at least when those prisoners wish to keep it long for religious reasons. But, when Landor presented this decision to prison guards, they threw it in the trash and shaved his head anyway.
And yet, in its 6-3 decision in Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety, which the Supreme Court handed down on Tuesday, the Court’s Republican majority held that Landor has no remedy against these prison officials, despite their clear cut violation of federal religious liberty law.
The Court’s Republican majority is normally very sympathetic to religious liberty plaintiffs, especially when those plaintiffs are Christian. So Landor is a break from this Court’s broader efforts to read religious liberty law expansively. It’s unclear why the Republican justices broke from their ordinary pattern of favoring religious plaintiffs, though one explanation is that Landor could undermine civil rights and public health statutes that Republicans oppose.
Justice Neil Gorsuch’s decision for himself and his fellow Republicans rests on a hypertechnical distinction between how the federal law at issue in this case, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), was actually drafted, and how it could have been drafted to protect people like Landor. In theory, Landor does little to limit Congress’s ability to protect religious liberty — or any other right. But it requires Congress to write laws in the way that Gorsuch prefers.
Indeed, it’s not even clear that Gorsuch’s opinion is wrong. Numerous federal appeals courts agree with Gorsuch’s approach to this case. Thus, one of the most baffling questions embedded in the Landor decision is why the Court decided to hear this lawsuit to begin with. Why take a case involving truly egregious facts, if all the justices planned to do was reaffirm existing law? They could have just let the lower court’s decision, which also ended in a loss for Landor, stand.
Instead, the justices decided to put their own prestige behind the shocking, if legally defensible, decision in Landor. The question is why.
One possible explanation is that the Court’s Landor decision most likely resolves an ongoing dispute about whether women in red states may receive emergency abortions, if one is necessary to save their life or to ward off serious health consequences. Although federal law requires hospitals to perform these emergency abortions, Gorsuch’s opinion in Landor could nullify that law — at least in states where abortion is illegal.
The Court’s Republican majority often reads the law in ways that are inconsistent with its precedents when doing so will shut down access to abortion. Additionally, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent in Landor lists other federal statutes, including one protecting nursing home residents, that could be undermined by Gorsuch’s opinion.
In any event, the immediate effect of the Court’s most recent decision is that Landor has no remedy, despite the fact that his religious liberty rights were clearly violated.
So what is the specific legal dispute in Landor?
As Gorsuch concedes, RLUIPA prohibits state prison systems that receive federal funding from “imposing ‘substantial burden[s] on the religious exercise[s]’ of state prisoners outside exceptional circumstances.” There’s little doubt that, by forcibly shaving Landor’s head, Louisiana’s prison system violated RLUIPA.
But Landor sought more than a mere judicial declaration that his rights were violated; he sued the prison officials who actually shaved his head, arguing that they should personally be liable to him. Gorsuch’s opinion holds that these officials are immune from paying money damages to Landor.
To reach this result, Gorsuch fixates on the fact that RLUIPA does not directly regulate prisons or prison guards. Instead, it imposes a condition on state prisons that accept federal grants. Those prisons are free to turn away that money if they wish, but if they take that money, they are required to comply with RLUIPA’s religious liberty protections.
This arrangement, Gorsuch argues, is similar to a contract, and thus can only bind the parties that agree to it. While the state prison where Landor was incarcerated agreed to comply with RLUIPA, Gorsuch claims, the employees of that prison did not. And thus they cannot be personally sued for violating RLUIPA.
On the surface, this is a narrow holding, because Gorsuch also writes that Congress could have made the prison guards liable to people like Landor if it had written RLUIPA slightly differently. “Congress,” Gorsuch writes, “could have said that, as a condition of federal funding to LDOC, its officers had to agree to enter separate contracts with the federal government consenting to answer suits under RLUIPA.” Or it “might have conditioned its funds on Louisiana’s agreement” to enact a state law permitting prisoners to sue prison guards who violate RLUIPA.
If the United States had a functioning Congress, it could fix RLUIPA tomorrow.
Indeed, Gorsuch draws such a fine distinction that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson spends much of her dissent arguing that her Republican colleagues should have cut Congress more slack. “The Court’s ruling apparently boils down to dissatisfaction with the precise way Congress structured RLUIPA,” Jackson writes for herself and her fellow Democrats. She adds that this “hairsplitting undervalues Congress’s lawmaking prerogative; we ought not substitute our rigid contract-based preferences for Congress’s considered statutory design.”
Yet, for what it is worth, lower court judges have largely preferred Gorsuch’s formalism to Jackson’s more pragmatic approach. As Louisiana pointed out in its brief to the justices, many federal appeals courts have agreed that prisoners like Landor are not allowed to sue prison officials for money damages. So, while the Landor decision may shock nonlawyers, it is not really a surprise to anyone who has followed this case closely.
Landor will probably have very bad consequences for women who need an abortion to save their life
Given this consensus among lower courts, it’s very odd that the Court decided to hear this case at all. If the Court had turned Landor’s petition asking the justices to review his case aside, the lower court’s ruling against him would have stood, but the Republican justices would have avoided the embarrassment of having to sign their names to such a seemingly unjust result.
One possible explanation for the Court’s decision to take up Landor, however, is that it potentially allows them to dodge an ongoing dispute about an even more contentious issue: abortion.
The federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), requires hospitals that accept Medicare funding (which is nearly every hospital in the US) to provide “such treatment as may be required to stabilize the medical condition” of “any individual” who arrives at the hospital’s ER with an “emergency medical condition.”
EMTALA contains no exception for abortion. So, under EMTALA’s text, federal law unambiguously requires hospitals to perform emergency abortions. EMTALA also says that state and local laws are superseded by EMTALA’s provisions “to the extent that the [state law] directly conflicts with a requirement of this section.” Red states, in other words, may not prohibit hospitals from performing emergency abortions that are required by federal law.
Nevertheless, Idaho refused to comply with EMTALA, and a dispute over whether Idaho’s broad abortion ban could restrict emergency abortions reached the Supreme Court in Moyle v. United States (2024).
Though a majority of the justices voted to dismiss the Moyle case without deciding it, Justice Samuel Alito wrote a dissenting opinion that closely resembles Gorsuch’s opinion in Landor. (Gorsuch joined most of Alito’s dissent.)
Alito argued that, much like RLUIPA, EMTALA operates like a contract — hospitals receive federal funding, and in return they agree to perform certain medical procedures. But the state of Idaho, Alito claimed, is not a party to this agreement much as the prison guards in Landor did not agree to be bound by RLUIPA’s provisions. And thus the state did not agree to have its broad ban on abortions limited by EMTALA’s provisions.
After Landor, it’s now fairly clear that Alito’s position should control Moyle. Indeed, after Landor, lower courts are likely to reject attempts to enforce EMTALA against red states, thus saving the Republican justices the trouble of having to nullify EMTALA’s protections for women who need emergency abortions themselves.
And thus, thereafter, women in red states who need emergency abortions to save their life will simply die.
Real journalists wrote and edited this (not AI)—independent, community-driven journalism survives because you back it. Donate to sustain Prism’s mission and the humans behind it.
Seven days after giving birth to a son in Salisbury, Maryland, immigration authorities took away 27-year-old Emane Alexandre’s husband following a scheduled court appearance for their pending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and asylum applications.
This form of government protection, granted by the Department of Homeland Security, is issued to immigrants who are unable to safely return to their home countries due to armed conflict, an environmental disaster, an epidemic, or other extraordinary and temporary conditions. TPS was established for Haitians 16 years ago, following the devastating 2010 Earthquake in Haiti that killed hundreds of thousands.
There are approximately 350,000 Haitians with TPS in the U.S., and more than 20,000 Haitians on Maryland’s Eastern Shore. President Donald Trump has attempted to end TPS for multiple countries—including Haiti. TPS expired for the country on Feb. 3, though it was temporarily stayed by a federal judge. The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to intervene, and now, thousands of families are in limbo as they await the court’s decision this month in Miot v. Trump.
Not only does Alexandre’s fate in the U.S. rest with the stacked Supreme Court, but so does her son’s. The court will also issue a decision this month on birthright citizenship, determining whether the children of newly arrived undocumented parents are U.S. citizens.
The administration’s ongoing xenophobic attacks have wreaked havoc on immigrant communities. This is especially true for Haitians, who found legal protection in the U.S. and whose futures in the country are now uncertain.
“The immigration system is slavery”
In October 2023, Alexandre fled her home in the Haitian-Dominican border town of Ouanaminthe, where the Earth is hot and the Dajabon River, also known as the Massacre River, separates the two countries. She left following an armed attack that destroyed her clothing business. Kidnapped, violated, and scared for her life, she felt unsafe staying in the country. Violence continues to roil the region. In February, four decapitated Haitian women were found along the border in Ouanaminthe.
Like many migrants from across the world, Alexandre made her way to Mexico in 2023 in hopes of requesting asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border. This is where she met Wesley Pericles, who made the trek up from Chile. The couple was stuck in Mexico for close to a year waiting for an asylum appointment. Eventually, Alexandre and Pericles were paroled into Texas on Christmas Eve 2024 to await their asylum hearing in the U.S. Alexandre was six months pregnant at the time. “I was finally able to take a breath,” she said.
They immediately made their way to Salisbury, where Pericles had a friend working in a poultry processing plant, a $4.6 billion industry that has shaped the region. Along the Eastern Shore, a coastal region that includes Delaware, Maryland, and parts of Virginia, industrial poultry farms and processing plants dot the landscape, creating company towns. Historically, the region was a hub for slavery. It was also the birthplace of Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglass, and a throughway for the Underground Railroad. Today, more than two-thirds of workers in meat and poultry processing industries are Black or Latinx and an estimated 40% to 50% are migrants.
Immigrants account for 17% of Maryland’s population, and they are the primary workforce for poultry giants in the region, such as Perdue and Mountaire Farms. In nearby Wicomico and Sussex Counties, the overwhelming majority of residents voted for Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election. Ronald Cameron, CEO of Mountaire Farms, was a major donor to Trump’s campaign. Last summer, ahead of TPS expiring for Haiti, Mountaire plants laid off TPS workers who did not have a five-year work permit.
Mountaire did not respond to Prism’s request for comment.
One of Mounaire’s laid-off workers was Jean-Ronald Petit-Frere. In Haiti, the 47-year-old worked as a security guard for a Christian nonprofit. He reported armed group members to the police and he received death threats in return. He fled the port town of Leogane for the Haitian island La Gonave, where he was born. But the threats followed, so he hopped on a container ship to Puerto Rico.
His cousin was kidnapped, and his 16-year-old daughter was murdered in retribution for his cooperation with police. Four of his children remain in Haiti today.
After applying for both TPS and asylum, Petit-Frere received a work permit. In 2021, he joined his childhood friend in Salisbury, where he found work at Mountaire in 2022. He worked for the company for three years, earning enough to enroll his children in school in Haiti. He finally felt as if his life was moving forward, but last summer, he received a letter from the government instructing him to report to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Ultimately, he was given the choice to state his case in front of a judge or self-deport for $1,000. He took his chances in front of a judge and was allowed to remain in the U.S.—for now.
Soon after his court appearance, Petit-Frere lost his job. Though free, his life still hangs in the balance.
“I have nowhere else to go,” said Petit-Frere, his voice breaking as he considered the possibility of deportation. “If I go back they will kill me—they will kill my children.”
Another Haitian TPS recipient discarded by Mountaire is Venise Paul. She and her husband, also a Mountaire worker, bought a house in Salisbury in 2023, and their young children go to school in the area. The 40-year-old has lived in the U.S. for 12 years, and she started packing chicken at Mountaire in 2019. In January, she and her husband were laid off, a week apart. She begged Mountaire to let her stay, but management refused.
“I came here for a better life, I paid taxes, I haven’t done anything bad in the country,” she said.
Photo by Jess Dipierro Obert
Ultimately, whether an immigrant pays taxes or has a clean record has little bearing on whether they become targets for deportation—and this is especially true for Black immigrants under the Trump administration. Trump vowed to carry out mass deportations during his second term, and Black immigrants have been a regular target of the president’s racism and xenophobia.
“If you do not have a green card or citizenship, the immigration system can feel like slavery all over again,” said Dr. Marie D Bernadette Fouché, a former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention consultant and the founder and president of Safe Harbor Circles, an organization that provides support to immigrant communities across Maryland’s Eastern Shore.
The uptick in local job loss has caused some of Maryland’s migrant workers to become homeless, according to Rebirth, a Haitian nonprofit in Salisbury that supports the immigrant community. As unrest spiked in Haiti in 2024, Rebirth assisted 20-30 new immigrants a day, connecting them to government aid, healthcare, and other services.
Every Thursday, Rebirth’s founder, Habucuc Petion, and his wife Eddline, open a food bank for the community. The organization’s food bank was packed with community members in February after TPS for Haiti expired. Advocate Kenson Raymond stood at the front of the room and explained their rights in Haitian Creole, while members of the Black immigrants rights organization Haitian Bridge Alliance distributed packets about the Supreme Court’s TPS case and how recipients can prove work authorization in the interim.
In more recent months, the food bank’s attendance has dropped from 300 to 150—not because needs have lessened, but because people are afraid. The organization currently delivers directly to 19 people too scared to leave their homes.
“A lot of people had a few months left on their TPS and [poultry processing plants] let them go,” Petion said. “It’s like they are disposable.”
The court decision pausing the termination of TPS gave some hope they could begin working again. When Paul heard the news, she returned to Mountaire and once again asked for her job back. Again, management said no. Her husband now drives for Uber and the couple relies on food stamps to help feed their children.
Broadly, the court stay did not result in TPS recipients obtaining new work permit cards, said Guerline Jozef, co-founder and executive director of Haitian Bridge Alliance. According to advocates, the uncertainties around TPS are driving the hiring decisions of local poultry processing plants.
“They don’t want to take the risk to hire or bring back someone who they will have to let go again in a month or two,” Raymond said.
The targeting of Haitian immigrants in Maryland has made life in the region even more precarious.
Lyna Cobite, 60, had TPS since 2010 and lived in Salisbury for more than two decades. Her standing as a local, respected tax-paying business owner and mother of two American citizens did not save her from the Trump administration.
On May 15, Pastor Roosevelt Toussaint of the World of Life Center drove Cobite to what she believed would be a routine immigration appointment. However, Cobite didn’t return from the appointment. ICE detained her, claiming it had no record of her status as a TPS recipient. She was detained in Baltimore. “I feel very bad,” Toussaint said. “I encouraged her to go.”
Cobite’s niece, Patricia Vilacon, fought for her release. “My heart [was] pounding,” said Vilacon, describing the moment she learned her aunt was detained. “I [felt] the same exact pain as when my mom passed.”
After three days, Cobite was released, though she’s being monitored by ICE. “I just want her to be free,” her niece told Prism.
No safe return
Apart from video calls, Alexandre hasn’t seen her husband, Pericles, since last May.
Pericles, 32, was taken by ICE in May 2025 when the Trump administration first rolled out nationwide enforcement operations. Agents detained Pericles at a routine immigration appointment, in violation of basic due process.
In search of legal support, Alexandre connected with Jozef of Haitian Bridge Alliance. The organization provided three-months of rent assistance and offered a pro-bono lawyer. While tremendously helpful, Alexandre was still distraught.
The first week following her husband’s detainment, the stress made it difficult for her to breastfeed or to even remember her own name. The trauma of family separation one week after giving birth was too much to bear.
After Pericles’ detainment, Alexandre was left alone to raise their son while her husband spent a year shuffled between ICE detention centers in Louisiana and New Jersey. While in New Jersey, a judge ordered Pericles’ deportation for Nov. 10, 2025, but it was delayed for months. Living in a cramped cell with more than 100 people, he eventually found himself begging for a flight home.
“I was suffering from a fever that wouldn’t go away, headache, and a terrible toothache,” he later explained over a WhatsApp video call from Haiti. “I couldn’t eat.” While seemingly innocuous, a toothache can be deadly, given the inadequate healthcare and dire conditions inside detention centers. Earlier this year in Arizona, a detained Haitian man died from an untreated toothache.
During the first week of 2026, with his hands and legs shackled, ICE deported Pericles to Northern Haiti. In February, Alexandre was issued her own deportation order for March 11, but it was stayed after an emergency appeal by her lawyer.
In the months since, she received a work permit, but she is too scared to leave her apartment.
Despite her fear, she is not ready to give up on her dream of reuniting her family in the U.S. Her son, after all, is an American citizen—at least for now.
The topic of guardianship has become a regular focus of conversation among Haitian TPS recipients. Alexandre recently asked Fouché if she might be her son’s guardian— just in case.
“I don’t know what to do yet,” Alexandre said. “I would like to work, pay my bills, get my husband back so we can be together again.”
Currently, there is no legal way for Pericles to return to the U.S., and he finds himself displaced in Haiti as well, after armed groups in Artibonite set his parent’s home and small garden on fire. According to the United Nations, the armed group Gran Grif killed upward of 70 people in March as part of a massacre in the area, burning and looting more than 50 homes.
More broadly, Haiti is still reeling from the July 2021 assassination of President Jovenel Moïse, which gave armed groups expansive control of more than 90% of the Haitian capital and national highways connecting the country. Women are at high risk of sexual violence, and more than 1.4 million people have been displaced. In May, Doctors Without Borders/Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) was forced to close a hospital in Port-au-Prince’s Cité Soleil neighborhood after it was flooded with gunshot victims and more than 800 people seeking refuge—a reflection of the healthcare crisis awaiting those sent back.
“People are risking their lives simply to reach a medical facility,” said MSF U.S. CEO Tirana Hassan in a statement.
These are the conditions Alexandre and thousands of others are fearful of returning to, and these are the conditions the U.S. government ignores as it deports Haitians such as Pericles. Even the Toussaint Louverture International Airport in Port-au-Prince remains closed due to armed groups shooting at airliners. Since July 2018, the State Department has given the country a Level 4: Do Not Travel warning, and the U.S. ban on international aviation to the country was recently extended through September.
Still, deportation flights to Haiti continue.
Editorial Team:
Tina Vasquez, Lead Editor
Lara Witt, Top Editor
Stephanie Harris, Copy Editor
Related
-
Iowa4 minutes agoState officials continue to recommend no swimming at one Iowa lake
-
Kansas7 minutes ago
Kansas City police bring in extra help for World Cup events
-
Kentucky12 minutes agoKentucky’s schematic changes on defense in 2026
-
Louisiana19 minutes agoThe Supreme Court’s campaign to expand religious liberty now has a glaring exception
-
Maine19 minutes ago
Rains bring relief to drought in Maine
-
Maryland27 minutes agoSCOTUS holds the fates of 20,000 Haitian TPS recipients on Maryland’s Eastern Shore
-
Michigan34 minutes ago5 Michigan-themed coffee mugs to browse during Prime Day 2026
-
Massachusetts37 minutes agoRent control question tossed from ballot, SJC cites religious exemptions
