South Korea Constitutional Court upholds Yoon’s impeachment
(Photo by Chung Sung-Jun/Getty Images)
(SEOUL) — South Korea’s Constitutional Court upheld the impeachment of President Yoon Suk Yeol, whose short-lived declaration of martial law late last year plunged the country into political chaos, in a decision that removes the suspended leader from office.
The verdict was read in court shortly after 11 a.m. Friday local time (10 p.m. Thursday ET). Police across the country had been placed on the highest security alert level ahead of the verdict, with a security perimeter established around the court in Seoul, according to the Yonhap news agency.
With the court’s decision, Yoon is formally removed from office and South Korea will hold a snap presidential election within 60 days, according to the news agency.
Yoon was removed from office by the opposition-controlled National Assembly after declaring martial law in a televised speech on Dec. 3, claiming the opposition party sympathized with North Korea and was paralyzing the government.
The move sparked fierce protests, and several hours after the declaration, the National Assembly voted to demand that the president lift the martial law order.
Separate from his removal from office, Yoon was indicted by South Korean prosecutors on insurrection charges over the brief imposition of martial law.
An arrest warrant against him led to a standoff between his security team and police earlier this year.
In a dramatic scene, thousands of police descended on his home and were met with crowds of the impeached president’s backers, including some who lay down in front of police vehicles in an attempt to block authorities from reaching the residence.
Yoon was eventually arrested several days later and held in custody until March 8.
This combination of pictures created on Feb. 25, 2025 shows President Donald Trump on Feb. 24, 2025, and Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky on Feb 23, 2025. (Jim Watsontetiana Dzhafarova/AFP via Getty Images)
(KYIV) — A Ukrainian official described to ABC News details of a potential U.S.-Ukraine mineral deal, sharing points that appear to suggest Kyiv has succeeded in significantly improving the terms, perhaps staring down some of the Trump administration’s more onerous demands.
The $500 billion demanded by Trump no longer features in the draft, a Ukrainian official told ABC News. The fund that Ukraine will pay into is also no longer going to be 100% U.S. owned, the official said.
The two countries have agreed to a deal relating to critical minerals and other resources, a senior Ukrainian official said on Tuesday.
President Donald Trump did not confirm the U.S. had agreed, instead saying he had heard Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will visit Washington, D.C., to finalize the deal on Friday and that “it’s OK with me if he’d like to.”
The terms of a final agreement haven’t yet been disclosed.
The Ukrainian official said the resources that the agreement will apply to are only those not currently contributing to the Ukrainian budget, which means no oil and gas, or likely the majority of the country’s mineral resources.
If the final deal remains close to those terms, the deal may actually be quite restricted in real economic terms.
Carl Bildt, the former Swedish prime minister and co-chair of the European council on foreign relations, told BBC News that the mineral seems like a “sideshow” and was mostly designed to “keep Mr Trump happy.”
“But it is not going to give a lot of money to the U.S., and I don’t see it having any materially economic effect for very many years,” Bildt told the BBC.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
ABC News’ Will Gretsky contributed to this report.
(MEXICO CITY) — There is only one gun store in the entire country of Mexico, yet America’s southern neighbor is awash in violent crimes perpetrated with millions of firearms made in the United States.
In a historic case on Tuesday, the Supreme Court will consider whether American gun manufacturers, including Smith & Wesson, Glock, Beretta and Colt, can be held liable for allegedly “aiding and abetting” the illicit flow of weapons across the border.
The high court has never before taken up the issue of the sweeping gunmaker immunity found in a 2005 federal law aimed at protecting the industry. Its decision could have a significant impact on firearm companies and the victims of gun violence pursuing accountability.
The government of Mexico is seeking $10 billion in damages and court-mandated safety mechanisms and sales restrictions for U.S.-made guns. The justices will decide whether the case can move forward under an exception in the law.
“Between 70-90% of the crime guns in Mexico are illegally trafficked from the U.S.,” said Jonathan Lowy, an attorney representing the Mexican government. “Essentially, Mexico’s gun problem and the problem of armed cartel violence is almost entirely a result of this crime — a gun pipeline from the U.S. gun manufacturers ultimately to the cartels.”
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005 broadly bars lawsuits against any gun manufacturer over the illegal acts of a person using one of a manufacturer’s guns. But it does create an exception for claims involving a gun company’s alleged violation of rules governing the sale and marketing of firearms.
Mexico alleges the manufacturers have for years knowingly marketed and distributed their weapons to border community dealers who participate in illegal gun trafficking into Mexico.
“The law is clear that any person or company can be responsible for the foreseeable consequences of their actions and, in this case, of their deliberate actions,” Lowy said.
The gun companies, which declined ABC News’ request for an interview, said in court documents that the exception does not apply and the case should be dismissed, in part, because the alleged link to crimes in Mexico is too diffuse and far removed.
“Mexico’s alleged injuries all stem from the unlawful acts of foreign criminals,” the gun companies argued in their Supreme Court brief.
The court has “repeatedly held that it requires a direct connection between a defendant’s conduct and the plaintiff’s injury,” the companies claimed. “Thus, the general rule is that a company that makes or sells a lawful product is not a proximate cause of harms resulting from the independent criminal misuse of that product.”
More than 160,000 people in Mexico were killed by guns between 2015 and 2022, according to an analysis by Everytown for Gun Safety.
A large majority of guns involved in the shootings came from U.S. border states. More than 40% of illegal guns seized in Mexico over a five-year period came from Texas, according to a U.S. Government Accountability Office report.
In 2023 alone, more than 2,600 firearms were seized going south into Mexico, up 65% from the year before, according to the Department of Homeland Security, and 115,000 rounds of ammunition were captured headed the same direction, up 19% from 2022.
“In its zeal to attack the firearms industry, Mexico seeks to raze bedrock principles of American law that safeguard the whole economy,” the companies wrote in their brief. “It is the criminal who is responsible for his actions, not the company that made or sold the product.”
A federal district court dismissed Mexico’s case in 2022 citing the PLCAA protections. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision in early 2024, saying Mexico had made a plausible case for liability under the law’s exception.
The Supreme Court will decide whether to affirm that judgment and allow the case to continue toward what would be a first-of-its-kind trial.
Mexico, in the meantime, announced it will expand its lawsuit after the Trump administration designated six Mexican cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations.
“You will also see an expansion of this lawsuit for the complicity of those who sell weapons, which are [then] introduced into our country,” Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum told reporters last month.
In essence, Mexico will argue that American gun manufacturers aren’t just enabling ordinary gun crime but terrorism, by the U.S. government’s own characterization.
The Supreme Court is expected to deliver an opinion in the case, Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, by the end of June.
ABC News’ Matt Rivers and Patty See contributed to this report.
(LONDON and BELGRADE) — A mass shooting at an adult educational facility in Sweden on Tuesday was the deadliest such incident in the country’s history, with 11 people killed, including the alleged shooter, law enforcement said on Wednesday.
“It is a very painful day for all of Sweden,” Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said in a statement posted on social media. “Being confined to a classroom with fear for your own life is a nightmare that no one should have to experience.”
Police early on Wednesday said there was “currently no information that indicates that the perpetrator acted based on ideological motives.”
The shooting at the Risbergska Skolan complex in Orebro, Sweden, began midday, with police issuing an alert that the school was under threat of “deadly violence.”
The school was placed on lockdown, students were evacuated and family members were notified, police in the Bergslagen region said.
Officials initially said that a handful of people had been shot, without saying whether any had been killed. In an update close to midnight, police said 10 people and the alleged shooter were dead. The ages and identities of the dead and injured have not been released.
As of 7 a.m. on Wednesday, six people were still being treated in a local hospital — the same number of people as the day prior, according to Dr. Hans Olsson, who works in Orebro. No additional patients have been admitted, he said.
“The number of injured is still unclear,” police said in an update posted in Swedish. “We currently have no information on the condition of those who have been injured.”
ABC News’ Ellie Kaufman, Joe Simonetti, Helena Skinner and Megan Forrester contributed to this report.
