The International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor asked judges on Wednesday to issue an arrest warrant for the head of Myanmar’s military regime for crimes committed against the country’s Rohingya Muslim minority.

Senior Gen. Min Aung Hlaing, who seized power from elected leader Aung San Suu Kyi in 2021, is accused of crimes against humanity for the persecution of the Rohingya.

Nearly a million people were forced into neighboring Bangladesh to escape what has been called an ethnic cleansing campaign involving mass rapes, killings and the torching of homes.

From a refugee camp in Bangladesh, the court’s top prosecutor, Karim Khan, said in a statement that he intended to request more warrants for Myanmar’s leaders soon.

“In doing so, we will be demonstrating, together with all of our partners, that the Rohingya have not been forgotten. That they, like all people around the world, are entitled to the protection of the law,” the British barrister said.

The allegations stem from a counterinsurgency campaign that Myanmar’s military began in August 2017 in response to an insurgent attack. Min Aung Hlaing, who heads the Myanmar Defense Services, is said to have directed the armed forces of Myanmar, known as the Tatmadaw, as well as the national police to attack Rohingya civilians.

Khan was in Bangladesh where he met with members of the displaced Rohingya population. About 1 million of the predominately Muslim Rohingya live in Bangladesh as refugees from Myanmar, including about 740,000 who fled in 2017.

Rohingya face widespread discrimination in Buddhist-majority Myanmar, with most denied citizenship. Myanmar’s government refuses to recognize the Rohingya as one of the country’s 135 lawful ethnic minorities, instead calling them Bengalis, with the implication that their native land is in Bangladesh and they are illegally settled in Myanmar.

Human rights groups applauded the decision to seek a warrant. The dire situation of the Rohingya has received less attention as the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza have grabbed headlines. “The ICC prosecutor’s decision to seek a warrant against Sr. Gen. Min Aung Hlaing comes amid renewed atrocities against Rohingya civilians that echo those suffered seven years ago. The ICC’s action is an important step toward breaking the cycle of abuses and impunity,” said Maria Elena Vignoli, senior international justice counsel at Human Rights Watch.

A top Romanian court on Thursday asked the official electoral authority to recount and verify all of the ballots cast in the first round of the presidential election, which was won by a far-right outsider candidate, sending shockwaves through the political establishment.

The Constitutional Court in Bucharest approved the recounting of the more than 9.4 million ballots, and said its decision was final. The Central Election Bureau is expected to meet on Thursday afternoon to discuss the request.

Calin Georgescu, a little-known, far-right populist and independent candidate, won the first round, beating the incumbent prime minister. Georgescu was due to face reformist Elena Lasconi, the leader of the Save Romania Union party, in a Dec. 8. runoff.

Georgescu’s unexpected success has prompted nightly protests by people concerned with previous remarks he made in praising Romanian fascist and nationalist leaders and Russian President Vladimir Putin, and believe he poses a threat to democracy.

Without naming Georgescu, Romanian President Klaus Iohannis’ office said following a Supreme Council of National Defense meeting in Bucharest on Thursday that an analysis of documents revealed that “a presidential candidate benefited from massive exposure due to preferential treatment granted by the TikTok platform.”

Earlier this week, Romania’s National Audiovisual Council asked the European Commission to investigate TikTok’s role in the Nov. 24 vote. Pavel Popescu, the vice president of Romania’s media regulator Ancom, said he would request TikTok’s suspension in Romania if investigations find evidence of “manipulation of the electoral process.”

TikTok did not immediately respond to a request from The Associated Press.

The vote recount was prompted by a complaint made by Cristian Terhes, a former presidential candidate of the Romanian National Conservative Party who garnered 1% of the vote. Terhes alleged that Lasconi’s party had urged people to vote before some diaspora polls had closed on Sunday, saying it violated electoral laws against campaign activities on polling day.

After Thursday’s court ruling, Terhes’ press office posted on Facebook that the court ordered the recount “due to indications of fraud,” and alleged that valid votes cast for Ludovic Orban — who had dropped out of the race but remained on the ballot — had been reassigned to Lasconi.

It is the first time in Romania’s 35-year post-communist history that the country’s most powerful party, the Social Democratic Party, did not have a candidate in the second round of a presidential race. Prime Minister Marcel Ciolacu resigned as party leader after he narrowly lost to Lasconi by just 2,740 votes.

Drumming made the floor vibrate and singing filled the conference room of the Chinook Winds Casino Resort in Lincoln City, on the Oregon coast, as hundreds in tribal regalia danced in a circle.

For the last 47 years, the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians have held an annual powwow to celebrate regaining federal recognition. This month’s event, however, was especially significant: It came just two weeks after a federal court lifted restrictions on the tribe’s rights to hunt, fish and gather — restrictions tribal leaders had opposed for decades.

“We’re back to the way we were before,” Siletz Chairman Delores Pigsley said. “It feels really good.” The Siletz is a confederation of over two dozen bands and tribes whose traditional homelands spanned western Oregon, as well as parts of northern California and southwestern Washington state. The federal government in the 1850s forced them onto a reservation on the Oregon coast, where they were confederated together as a single, federally recognized tribe despite their different backgrounds and languages.

In the 1950s and ‘60s, Congress revoked recognition of over 100 tribes, including the Siletz, under a policy known as “termination.” Affected tribes lost millions of acres of land as well as federal funding and services.

“The goal was to try and assimilate Native people, get them moved into cities,” said Matthew Campbell, deputy director of the Native American Rights Fund. “But also I think there was certainly a financial aspect to it. I think the United States was trying to see how it could limit its costs in terms of providing for tribal nations.”

Losing their lands and self-governance was painful, and the tribes fought for decades to regain federal recognition. In 1977, the Siletz became the second tribe to succeed, following the restoration of the Menominee Tribe in Wisconsin in 1973.

But to get a fraction of its land back — roughly 3,600 acres (1,457 hectares) of the 1.1-million-acre (445,000-hectare) reservation established for the tribe in 1855 — the Siletz tribe had to agree to a federal court order that restricted their hunting, fishing and gathering rights. It was only one of two tribes in the country, along with Oregon’s Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde, compelled to do so to regain tribal land.

The settlement limited where tribal members could fish, hunt and gather for ceremonial and subsistence purposes, and it imposed caps on how many salmon, elk and deer could be harvested in a year. It was devastating, tribal chair Pigsley recalled: The tribe was forced to buy salmon for ceremonies because it couldn’t provide for itself, and people were arrested for hunting and fishing violations.

Mississippi voters will decide winners for one seat on the state Supreme Court and one on the state Court of Appeals.

Runoff elections are Tuesday between candidates who advanced from the Nov. 5 general election. Polls are open 7 a.m.-7 p.m. central.

Voter turnout typically decreases between general elections and runoffs, and campaigns say turnout could be especially challenging two days before Thanksgiving.

Supreme Court Justice Jim Kitchens is seeking a third term and is challenged by state Sen. Jenifer Branning. They are running in District 1, also known as the Central District, which stretches from the Delta region through the Jackson metro area and over to the Alabama border.

Branning received 42% in the first round of voting, and Kitchens received 36%. Three other candidates split the rest.

Mississippi judicial candidates run without party labels, but Democratic areas largely supported Kitchens on Nov. 5 and Republican ones supported Branning.

Branning is endorsed by the state Republican Party. She calls herself a “constitutional conservative” and says she opposes “liberal, activists judges” and “the radical left.”

Kitchens is the more senior of the Court’s two presiding justices, putting him next in line to serve as chief justice. He is endorsed by the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Action Fund, which calls itself “a catalyst for racial justice in the South and beyond.”

In September, Kitchens sided with a man on death row for a murder conviction in which a key witness recanted her testimony. In 2018, Kitchens dissented in a pair of death row cases dealing with the use of the drug midazolam in state executions.

The Court of Appeals runoff is in District 5 in the southeastern corner of the state, including the Gulf Coast.

Amy St. Pe’ and Jennifer Schloegel advanced to the runoff from a three-way contest, with St. Pe’ receiving 35% of the vote on Nov. 5 and Schloegel receiving 33%. The runoff winner will succeed Judge Joel Smith, who did not seek reelection.

St. Pe’ is a municipal judge in Gautier. Schloegel is a chancery court judge in Hancock, Harrison and Stone counties.

The Supreme Court is allowing a multibillion-dollar class action investors’ lawsuit to proceed against Facebook parent Meta, stemming from the privacy scandal involving the Cambridge Analytica political consulting firm.

The justices heard arguments in November in Meta’s bid to shut down the lawsuit. On Friday, they decided that they were wrong to take up the case in the first place.

The high court dismissed the company’s appeal, leaving in place an appellate ruling allowing the case to go forward.

Investors allege that Meta did not fully disclose the risks that Facebook users’ personal information would be misused by Cambridge Analytica, a firm that supported Donald Trump ’s first successful Republican presidential campaign in 2016.

Inadequacy of the disclosures led to two significant price drops in the price of the company’s shares in 2018, after the public learned about the extent of the privacy scandal, the investors say.

Meta spokesman Andy Stone said the company was disappointed by the court’s action. “The plaintiff’s claims are baseless and we will continue to defend ourselves as this case is considered by the District Court,” Stone said in an emailed statement.

Meta already has paid a $5.1 billion fine and reached a $725 million privacy settlement with users. Cambridge Analytica had ties to Trump political strategist Steve Bannon. It had paid a Facebook app developer for access to the personal information of about 87 million Facebook users. That data was then used to target U.S. voters during the 2016 campaign.

The lawsuit is one of two high court cases involving class-action lawsuits against tech companies. The justices also are wrestling with whether to shut down a class action against Nvidia. Investors say the company misled them about its dependence on selling computer chips for the mining of volatile cryptocurrency.

The Supreme Court on Friday stepped into a major legal fight over the $8 billion a year the federal government spends to subsidize phone and internet services in schools, libraries and rural areas, in a new test of federal regulatory power.

The justices will review an appellate ruling that struck down as unconstitutional the Universal Service Fund. The Federal Communications Commission collects money from telecommunications providers, who then pass the cost on to their customers.

A conservative advocacy group, Consumer Research, challenged the practice. The justices had previously denied two appeals from Consumer Research after federal appeals courts upheld the program. But the full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, among the nation’s most conservative, ruled 9-7 that the method of funding is unconstitutional.

The Biden administration appealed that ruling, but the case probably won’t be argued until late March. At that point, the Trump administration will be in place and it not clear whether it will take a different view of the issue.

The 5th Circuit held that the funding method is unconstitutional because Congress has given too much authority to the FCC and the agency in turn has ceded too much power to a private entity.

The last time the Supreme Court invoked what is known as the non-delegation doctrine to strike down a federal law was in 1935. But several conservative justices have suggested they are open to breathing new life into the legal doctrine.

Louisiana’s plan to make all of the state’s public school classrooms post the Ten Commandments next year remains on hold under an order Wednesday by a federal appeals court in New Orleans.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a state request to temporarily stay an earlier order by U.S. District Judge John deGravelles in Baton Rouge while litigation continues. Arguments before a 5th Circuit panel are scheduled for Jan. 23, meaning the judge’s order stays in effect well past the law’s Jan. 1 deadline to post the commandments.

The state contends that deGravelles’ order affects only the five school districts that are defendants in a legal challenge. But it’s unclear whether or how the law would be enforced in the state’s 67 other districts while the appeal progresses. Also, deGravelles ordered that all schools in every district be notified of his decision that the law is unconstitutional, a requirement maintained by Wednesday’s ruling.

“We’re pleased that the Court of Appeals left the district court’s injunction fully intact,” said Sam Grover, an attorney with the Freedom From Religion Foundation. “As the district court ruled, this law is unconstitutional on its face.”

State Attorney General Liz Murrill said in an emailed statement that her office would “continue to defend this clearly constitutional law.”

DeGravelles ruled that the law, passed by the GOP-dominated Legislature, was “overtly religious” and “unconstitutional on its face.” He also said it amounted to unconstitutional religious government coercion of students, who are legally required to attend school.

Republican Gov. Jeff Landry signed the bill into law in June, prompting a group of Louisiana public school parents of different faiths to sue. They argue the law violates the First Amendment’s provisions forbidding the government from establishing a religion or blocking the free exercise of it. They also say the proposed poster-sized display would isolate students, especially those who are not Christian. The parents further argue that the version of the Ten Commandments specified in the law is favored by many protestants and doesn’t match any version found in Jewish tradition.

Proponents say the Ten Commandments are not solely religious and have a historical significance to the foundation of U.S. law. Murrill, the Republican attorney general, has said she disagreed with deGravelles’ ruling and that the law is constitutional under Supreme Court precedents.

The state’s loss in court on Wednesday came after a partial victory last week, when a 5th Circuit panel temporarily blocked instructions in DeGravelles’ order that state education officials notify schools in all districts of his finding that the law is unconstitutional.