Delroy Lindo Addresses BAFTA Racial Slur Incident During NAACP Awards, Gets Standing Ovation

Delroy Lindo and Michael B. Jordan were on stage at the BAFTAs on Feb. 22, when Tourette syndrome advocate John Davidson yelled a racial slur

NEED TO KNOW

• Lindo addressed the incident as he appeared onstage with Sinners director Ryan Coogler at the 2026 NAACP Image Awards on Saturday, Feb. 28

• During the event, Regina Hall voiced her support for Lindo and Jordan

Delroy Lindoaddressed the racial slur incident at theBAFTAsinvolving Tourette syndrome advocateJohn Davidsonduring the 2026 NAACP Image Awards.

The Oscar nominee, 73, andMichael B. Jordanwere presenting an award on stage on Feb. 22, when Davidson, 54,yelled the n-word. While appearing on stage withSinnersdirector Ryan Coogler at the 2026 NAACP Image Awards on Saturday, Feb. 28, Lindo took a moment to acknowledge the public's support following the incident.

"I'd just like to officially say, I appreciate, we appreciate all the support and love we have been shown in the aftermath of what happened last weekend. It means a lot to us," Lindo said onstage at the ceremony in avideoposted byRevolton TikTok, after receiving a standing ovation from the audience.

"It is an honor to be here amongst our people this evening, among so many people who have shown us such incredible support," the actor continued.

Referring to the BAFTA controversy, he added that, "It's a classic case of something that could have been very negative becoming very positive. Thank you so much for the support."

Elsewhere during the 2026 NAACP Image Awards, actressRegina Hallshared her support for Lindo and Jordan, 39, following the racial slur incident.

"I would like also to just take a moment to the two kings who are in this audience and just send you so much love for your class and that is Michael B. Jordan and Delory Lindo," Hall, 55, said in a video reposted onTikTok. The audience then gave another standing ovation in support of the actors.

Never miss a story — sign up for PEOPLE'sfree daily newsletterto stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer​​, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories.

At the2026 BAFTA Awardsin London on Feb. 22, Tourette's syndrome advocate Davidson, who attended the ceremony as a guest, yelled the n-word at Lindo and Jordan as the pair appeared onstage together to present an award.

Advertisement

Davidson started experiencing symptoms ofTourette syndrome, which causes involuntary verbal and physical tics, at the age of 12. He was invited to the awards show to represent the BAFTA-nominated filmI Swear,which is based on his life and experiences with the condition.

While attending a Warner Brothers' afterparty, Lindo said in an interview withVanity Fair, that he wished "someone from BAFTA spoke to [Jordan and I] afterwards."

Davidson indicated in an interview withVarietyon Feb. 24, he reached out to theSinnersteam to directly apologize to Jordan, Lindo and the movie's production designer, Hannah Beachler, following the racial slur incident.

"StudioCanal were working closely with BAFTA, and BAFTA had made us all aware that any swearing would be edited out of the broadcast," Davidson told the outlet. "I have made four documentaries with the BBC in the past, and feel that they should have been aware of what to expect from Tourette's and worked harder to prevent anything that I said — which, after all, was some 40 rows back from the stage — from being included in the broadcast."

He continued, "I remember there was a microphone just in front of me, and with hindsight I have to question whether this was wise, so close to where I was seated, knowing I would tic."

"When socially unacceptable words come out, the guilt and shame on the part of the person with the condition is often unbearable and causes enormous distress," Davidson added of the highly misunderstood neurological disorder. "I can't begin to explain how upset and distraught I have been as the impact from Sunday sinks in."

TheBBCapologized for the offensive moment not being edited out of the BBC One broadcast, which had a two-hour delay, telling PEOPLE in a statement, "Some viewers may have heard strong and offensive language during the BAFTA Film Awards. This arose from involuntary verbal tics associated with Tourette syndrome, and as explained during the ceremony, it was not intentional."

"We [apologize] that this was not edited out prior to broadcast and it will now be removed from the version on BBC iPlayer," the BBC concluded.

The British Academy of Film and Television Arts also apologized for the incidentin a statementreleased on Feb. 23. "We apologize unreservedly to them, and to all those impacted. We would like to thank Michael and Delroy for their incredible dignity and professionalism."

Read the original article onPeople

byNito

in

March 01, 2026

Delroy Lindo Addresses BAFTA Racial Slur Incident During NAACP Awards, Gets Standing Ovation

Delroy Lindo and Michael B. Jordan were on stage at the BAFTAs on Feb. 22, when Tourette syndrome advocate John Davidson...

Read More

What each side wants in the Homeland Security shutdown standoff

WASHINGTON – TheDepartment of Homeland Securityhas been shut down for more than two weeks,jeopardizing airport security, disaster relief, coastline safety and even pay for members of the Secret Service as they guarded the president during theState of the Union.

The Trump administration sent its latest proposal to Senate Democrats to reopen the agency on Feb. 27, but the negotiations between the White House and Capitol Hill have been happening largely behind closed doors.

There's still no end in sightto the funding impasse. Members of both parties have continued talking past each other, at least publicly, in recent days. Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, told reporters Feb. 25 the Trump administration had yet to start negotiating earnestly about demands to reform federal immigration enforcement.

Another person has been fatally shot by federal law enforcement in Minneapolis, officials said on Jan. 24. The shooting comes just over two weeks after 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good was shot in the head by a federal immigration officer in a residential neighborhood south of downtown. See the scene of a shooting.

" style="max-width:100%; height:auto; border-radius:6px; margin:10px 0;" loading="lazy" />

Man fatally shot by federal officers in Minneapolis. Photos show the scene

Another personhas been fatally shot by federal law enforcementin Minneapolis, officials said on Jan. 24. The shooting comes just over two weeksafter 37-year-old Renee Nicole Goodwas shot in the head by a federal immigration officer in a residential neighborhood south of downtown. See the scene of a shooting.

Hours later, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-South Dakota, contradicted Murray, pointing to the fact that top administration officials and Senate Democrats were trading paper.

"The White House, I think, has been, in good faith, trying to come to the table and work out some of the differences that the Democrats have," he said, "but in ways that don't jeopardize or undermine the ability of our law enforcement officials to do their jobs, and do them in a way that keeps them safe."

It was an indication of how far apart both sides still remain in the shutdown standoff – the third occasion in PresidentDonald Trump's second term during which funding for the 9/11-era Cabinet agency has lapsed.

Lawmakers and administration officials have indicated thousands of employees are working without pay while some critical functions, including at the Federal Emergency Management Agency and Coast Guard, have been scaled back until the shutdown ends. (Immigration enforcement operations have continued as usual.)

Despite those high stakes, the president made sparing mentions of the funding lapse duringhis State of the Union speechon Feb. 24. The lack of attention he brought to the issue underlined just how commonplace shutdowns have become in Washington, especially in the second Trump era.

The longer the situation drags on, the worse it will become. Union leaders for workers at the Transportation Security Administration are already anticipating longer wait times for airline passengers after TSA employees received a fraction of their usual pay on Friday, Feb. 27.

But it doesn't feel like lawmakers are experiencing a critical mass of pressure from their constituents yet to force a deal. And the further away the timeline gets from the fatal shootings of two Minnesotans in January, the more leverage Republicans may sense they have. Washington's attention has already started largely turning away from the politics of immigration enforcement and toward heightened tensions with Iran and Cuba.

Advertisement

Read more:Why travelers should prep for a DHS shutdown with no end in sight

What Democrats want

Weeks ago, Democrats made 10 central demands to the White House.

Afterthe killing of Alex Pretti, Democrats took a stand to push for a ban on mask-wearing for agents, stricter use-of-force standards and body camera requirements. They also want tightened restrictions around what types of warrants authorize federal officials to arrest people and use force to enter residences. And they want to reestablish a longstanding precedent that Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, won't target so-called "sensitive locations" such as schools, hospitals and churches.

"All they have to do is agree with our simple ideas that every police department, just about, in America, follows," said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York, on Feb. 25. "It's plain and simple."

An incident in Schumer's own state a day after he made those remarks may throw a wrench in the negotiations with the White House. According to administrators at Columbia University in New York City, five federal agents misrepresented who they were – falsely saying they were police looking for a missing child – in order to gain access to a residential dorm. Without a warrant, they thendetained a senior named Ellie Aghayevaover concerns about her student visa. She was released later that day after New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani made a personal appeal to the president.

What Republicans want

Republicans in Congress and the White House are still pushing back on various pieces of Democrats' proposals.

House Speaker Mike Johnsonhas said that appeals for a mask ban and judicial warrant requirements are nonstarters. Face coverings are arguably the biggest sticking point, as Johnson and other GOP lawmakers have said they help prevent federal agents from becoming targets for harassment or threats.

The speaker has, however, indicated an openness to limits on so-called "roving patrols," or random stops of suspicious vehicles, and to bolstering body-worn camera usage. Before the fatal shooting of Pretti by Border Patrol agents upended the bipartisan agreement to fund DHS through the rest of the year, Republicans had already agreed to set aside $20 million for body-worn cameras for immigration enforcement agents.

Schumer's office said Feb. 27 it was closely reviewing the White House's latest counteroffer.

Zachary Schermele is a congressional reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach him by email at zschermele@usatoday.com. Follow him on X at @ZachSchermele and Bluesky at @zachschermele.bsky.social.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY:Where things stand in the Homeland Security shutdown standoff

byNito

in

March 01, 2026

What each side wants in the Homeland Security shutdown standoff

WASHINGTON – TheDepartment of Homeland Securityhas been shut down for more than two weeks,jeopardizing airport security,...

Read More

Can you have a gun if you smoke a lot of pot? Supreme Court to decide

WASHINGTON − The Trump administration, which has ardently backed gun rights, will nonetheless try to convince theSupreme Courton March 2 that frequent pot smokerscan be imprisonedfor having a gun.

The Justice Department will make that argument even as the administration ismoving to reclassifymarijuana to a less dangerous category of drugs – and as cannabis is legal in some form in the majority of states.

That's just one of the noteworthy aspects of thecase, the second involving the constitutional right to bear arms that the justices are deciding this year.

Their rulings could clarify the legal test for gun regulations the court created in recent years that has led to a spike in challenges to gun rules. It's also caused much confusion in lower courts as they try to apply the test.

But the justices could sidestep the Second Amendment aspect and decide that the federal law prohibiting an "unlawful user" of a controlled substance from having a firearm is problematic for other reasons. That might limit the reach of the ban to anyone "addicted" to marijuana or any other drug considered dangerous enough to be regulated by the government, rather than also covering the estimated tens of millions of Americans who recreationally use pot and other drugs.

Here's what you need to know.

What is the case about?

The government is defending its prosecution of Ali Danial Hemani, a dual citizen of the United States and Pakistan whom the FBI had been monitoring because of his alleged connection to Iran's paramilitary Revolutionary Guard. The government has designated the guard a global terrorist group.

During a 2022 search of his Texas home, Hemani told the agents he had a Glock 9mm pistol and also said he used marijuana "about every other day."

Although the government tried to detain Hemani on more serious allegations of criminal activity, he was charged only with having a gun while being an unlawful user of marijuana. That's a felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

How did the lower court rule?

The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that the gun ban can't be applied to Hemani under theSupreme Court's landmark 2022 ruling that gunprohibitions must be grounded in history that is"consistent with our tradition of gun regulation."

While history and tradition support "some limits on apresentlyintoxicated person's right to carry a weapon," the appeals courtsaid, "they do not support disarming a sober person based solely on past substance usage."

Why is the Trump administration defending the law?

In theother gun rights casethe Supreme Court is considering this term, the Justice Department opposes Hawaii's restrictive rules for guns in public places.

"As I said soon after taking office, the Second Amendment is not a second-class right," Attorney GeneralPam Bondiwrote on Xafter filing a Supreme Court brief challenging Hawaii's law. "My Justice Department will continue to be the most pro-Second Amendment Justice Department in history."

More:Supreme Court skeptical of Hawaii gun law, nicknamed 'Vampire Rule'

But Hemani's case, the government argues, "presents narrow circumstances" where the government can meet the "rigorous burden" imposed when limiting gun rights.

"A person regains his ability to possess arms as soon as he stops habitually using drugs," lawyers for the Justice Department wrote in a filing.

The Brady gun control advocacy group was on the opposite side of the Hawaii case but backs the Justice Department's defense of the federal ban on drug users having guns.

"We have major disagreements with the Trump administration on gun violence prevention," said Douglas Letter, the group's chief legal officer. "That doesn't mean they're always wrong."

Is Trump trying to declassify marijuana?

PresidentDonald Trumphasdirected the Justice Departmentto work on reclassifying marijuana as a less dangerous substance.

"The policy of the United States, it appears, is that cannabis may be useful medicine for some patriotic Americans − while also being the spark that twists ordinary people into maniacs who are primed to attack the police," the libertarian Cato Institute and the Rason Foundation wrote in afilingsupporting Hemani.

The Justice Departmenttoldthe Supreme Court that the purpose of the reclassification is to "facilitate medical marijuana and CBD research" while also continuing to restrict the sale of products that pose serious health risks.

Advertisement

Still, Heather Trela at the Rockefeller Institute of Government, a public policy think tank, said the pending rescheduling "does potentially weaken the federal government's argument of the inherent dangers of cannabis use."

If there are medical uses for a controlled substance, the justices might question whether there's a difference between prohibiting gun ownership for those who smoke pot recreationally versus those who use it medicinally, Trelawrote in a previewof the oral arguments.

How often is the law used?

The goverment says it regularly charges more than 300 people each year with having a gun while being either an unlawful user of a controlled substance or a drug addict. The Justice Department said that provision "plays an integral role" in a set of rules designed to keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous or irresponsible people. The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed in response to the assassinations of President Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr.

But the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers says the provision of the act at issue is being used less for public safety reasons and primarily as a tool for selective prosecutions, leverage in plea bargains or "as a means of incarcerating otherwise law-abiding citizens when the government's primary theory falls short."

Hemani's case, the association said in a afiling, makes their point. The government couldn't make its preferred charges stick, so the law at issue provided an easy fallback "because both drug use and firearm ownership are ubiquitous features of American life."

How might the case affect gun rules generally?

In its landmark 2022 decisionstriking down New York's lawrequiring residents to have a good reason to obtain a license to carry a handgun, the Supreme Court created a new "historical tradition" test for firearm rules.

That forced a reassessment of perhaps thousands of Second Amendment rights cases around the country, said Eric Ruben, a law professor at Southern Methodist University.

In a 2024 decision upholding a lawbanning domestic abusers from owning guns, the court tried to clarify how close a modern law has to be with a historical one for it to be constitutional.

But the lower courts are still "all over the place in terms of what you're supposed to be analogizing to," Ruben said.

Adam Winkler, a UCLA School of Law professor, said the confusion has opened the door for judges to impose their own preferences. Judges appointed by Democrat presidents are upholding gun laws even when there's weak historical evidence while Republican-appointed judges are striking down laws for lack of a historical "twin" – even though the Supreme Court has said that's not the standard, Winkler said.

"What we've seen is a lot of judicial activism in this space," he said. "The Supreme Court has not provided much helpful guidance."

Could the court avoid ruling on the Second Amendment?

It's possible, however, that the justices could decide Hemani's case without clarifying their constitutionality test for gun rules.

"This case has been billed as the Court's next big Second Amendment battle," Joel Johnson, a former Justice Department attorney who teaches at Pepperdine Caruso School of Law, wrote in afilingsupporting Hemani. "But it need not be."

Both Johnson and Hemani's lawyers argue that the "unlawful user" provision of the statute should fall because it's impermissibly vague. The law doesn't say, for example, how much pot you have to smoke, how often and how recently to be barred from having a gun.

"It's simply impossible for an ordinary person to understand what is prohibited," said Brandon Buskey, director of the ACLU's Criminal Law Reform Project. The ACLU is one of the legal groups representing Hemani.

"I think the government position is really confusing the idea of drug use with drug abuse," Buskey said.

The Justice Department says someone has to be an "habitual" user to be banned from having a gun. But that's different from what the government has said in the past and is still undefined, Hemani's lawyers argue.

While the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives long interpreted the law to be triggered by a single drug-possession conviction or failed drug test within the past year, it now wants the test to be a "pattern of ongoing use."

That issue makes it hard to predict how consequential the case could be for further refining when gun regulations can pass constitutional muster, said Winkler, author of "Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America."

"I don't know if the court will find the vagueness off-ramp attractive," Winkler said. "It's possible that the court could rule on vagueness and thus not have any impact on the Second Amendment doctrine whatsoever."

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY:Can you have a gun if you smoke a lot of pot? Supreme Court to decide

byNito

in

March 01, 2026

Can you have a gun if you smoke a lot of pot? Supreme Court to decide

WASHINGTON − The Trump administration, which has ardently backed gun rights, will nonetheless try to convince theSupreme...

Read More