After spending more than a week trying to save a humpback whale stranded off Germany's northern coast, rescue officials have conceded their hopes have run out.

The whale became stuck on a sandbank on 23 March before being rescued days later - only to swim into shallow waters on Poel Island, further down the Baltic Sea coast.

"We're of the firm opinion the animal will die there," Burkard Baschek, head of the German Oceanographic Museum, said on Wednesday.

During an emotional press briefing, local environment minister Till Backhaus said rescuers had "tried everything to give him a chance" and called the situation "an exceptional tragedy".

Greenpeace marine biologist Thilo Maack said they had tried to stop the whale entering a shallow bay on Poel Island, but it had done so anyway.

First spotted in German coastal waters in early March, the whale is thought to have become entangled in netting before eventually becoming stranded on a sandbank on Timmendorfer Strand, near the town of Travemünde.

The humpback is also thought to have been suffering from a skin condition brought on by the lower salt levels of the Baltic Sea.

Late last week, hopes had been high that the whale might move to deeper waters after excavators dug a channel enabling him to swim off.

Attempts to guide the humpback towards the saltier waters of the North Sea proved unsuccessful, and he swam some distance east along the coast before becoming stuck again in a coastal bay in the city of Wismar.

Rescuers coaxed him away but only as far as nearby Poel Island, where he is now lying on the seabed. With the water level set to drop, they believe he is too weak to swim any further.

Baschek said the whale's breathing and reaction to rescuers had deteriorated, and that the chances of coaxing him out of the bay were so slim it would be cruel to try.

It is thought his hopes of survival ran out early on Wednesday.

Backhaus, a leading rescue official in the northern state of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, told reporters that a 500m (1,640ft) exclusion zone had been set up around the whale so it could die with dignity.

The Supreme Court appeared sceptical of President Donald Trump's executive order limiting birthright citizenship, a sign the high court could strike down a key element of his immigration agenda.

A majority of the court's justices on Wednesday seemed unconvinced that the US should stop granting citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants and some temporary US visitors.

The administration has argued that its effort to limit birthright citizenship is necessary to help rein in illegal immigration. Opponents argue it would upend more than a century of precedent and unravel a cornerstone of US immigration law enshrined by the 14th Amendment.

Trump attended the oral arguments in person on Wednesday, a rare move by a sitting president that underscored the high stakes of the case.

A defeat for Trump would mark a second straight setback at the high court, following the decision last month that invalidated the president's global tariffs. A win would help Trump deliver on his pledge to reshape America's immigration policies.

During more than two hours of arguments, U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer sought to convince the justices that the 14th Amendment - which establishes the concept of birthright citizenship and was extended formerly to enslaved people - and subsequent court rulings and laws passed by Congress all mistakenly expanded birthright citizenship.

Chief Justice John Roberts, a key swing vote on the court, questioned Trump's authority to exclude the children of undocumented immigrants from receiving US citizenship.

"I'm not quite sure how you can get to that big group," Roberts said.

• Trump says he will attend birthright citizenship arguments at Supreme Court
• Trump wants to end birthright citizenship. Where do other countries stand?

The oral arguments turned on a key clause in the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to all people born or naturalized in the US who are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Bauer argued that the clause should only apply to the children of foreign diplomats and a few other limited groups. Parents who are in the country illegally when their children are born have "allegiance" to their home countries and therefore don't fall under the jurisdiction of US law, he said.

"Jurisdiction means allegiance," Sauer said. Citing a previous court opinion, he later argued that "permanent residence and domicile decides [citizenship]. That's what the court should be bound by."

But several justices said that interpretation would fundamentally reshape how Americans and people living around the world understand the US birthright citizenship process.

Justice Elena Kagan said the administration was seeking to undo a legal tradition of birthright citizenship that dates back to English common law. "What the 14th Amendment did was accept that tradition and not attempt to put any limitations on it. That was the clear rationale," Kagan said.

Several justices also pointed to the 1898 Supreme Court ruling, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the landmark decision that upheld birthright citizenship in the case of a child born to Chinese immigrants living in the US.

Cecillia Wang, an ACLU attorney representing the plaintiffs in court on Wednesday, used the decision to argue that Trump's executive order should be overturned.

"If we agree with you how to read Wong Kim Ark, then you win," Justice Brett Kavanaugh said. "That could be just a short opinion."

Whether the court ultimately issues a broad or narrow opinion remains to be seen. The difference between a sweeping ruling on constitutional grounds versus a more tailored opinion on statutory grounds is a critical one, legal experts said.

The justices could choose to focus on a 1952 law passed by Congress that codified birthright citizenship and not wade into the larger constitutional debate, said Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration law expert.

"The court does not like to rule on constitutional issues if it doesn't have to," Yale-Loehr said. "The court could argue that the Trump executive order is invalid on statutory grounds."

The court is expected to issue its decision in June. It would be the first major immigration case decided by the court on its merits since Trump started his second term. The court has taken up other immigration cases, but has so far sent them back to lower courts for further review.

Trump's push to end birthright citizenship is one part of his larger immigration crackdown. But it's nevertheless a longtime goal of many on the right, and something Trump has supported since his first term in office. A victory in this case would help Trump make the case that he is delivering on his campaign pledge to limit illegal immigration.

A loss would be a setback to Trump's immigration agenda. But it would also represent a larger blow to his efforts to aggressively expand executive power since returning to office. The ruling in February overturning Trump's sweeping global tariffs showed the justices are not willing to give Trump a blank check to bypass Congress and the courts.

Trump signaled his interest in the case by attending the oral arguments on Wednesday. Critics said his appearance was an improper effort to influence the court ahead of a decision that will have major repercussions for his domestic policy agenda.

"We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow 'Birthright' Citizenship!" Trump said incorrectly on social media after leaving the court.

Two migrants have died attempting to cross the English Channel, French authorities have said.

Six others were rescued, with one of them taken to hospital requiring urgent care, after migrants got into difficulty boarding a boat near Calais on Wednesday morning.

The French maritime prefecture said the small boat was seen heading towards the beach at Gravelines at around 09:30 local time, where 30 migrants were waiting to board.

It comes a day after the UK and France extended talks over renewing a deal to try and stop small boats trying to the cross the Channel.

Responders pulled eight people onto a rescue boat when they got into difficulty, but two of them died.

A French naval helicopter was also deployed to carry out a search of the area to make sure no one was left in the water, the French authority said.

At least 12 French police officers were present in the beach area at the time.

Steve Smith, chief executive of refugee charity Care4Calais, said the two people who died had been "lost to our deadly border".

On Tuesday, the UK signed a two-month extension on a £476m deal made with France by the previous government for extra patrols to disrupt migrant smuggling gangs.

The agreement had been due to expire, but talks on renewing the deal were extended by two months to thrash out an agreement.

It means operational contracts will continue to be funded, costing the UK £16.2m.

A Home Office spokesperson claimed Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood was "driving a hard bargain".

The home secretary is understood to be pushing for the new arrangement to include performance-related clauses that would link funding to the proportion of boats intercepted by the French.

Under the current deal, nearly 700 law enforcement officers are on the ground patrolling beaches, using drones and buggies to stop people getting on boats.

The UK government claims the deal has prevented 42,000 illegal migrants getting on boats, although the overall number making the journey across the Channel has continued to increase.

Over the past three years, crossings in the Channel have increased, with 41,472 people arriving in the UK by small boat in 2025.

Between 1 January and 26 March 2026, a total of 4,441 people crossed the English Channel by small boat from France.

This is 33% lower than the number who had reached the UK by this point in 2025, which was 6,642, although weather conditions may have played a part in this, with rougher conditions in the Channel compared with the same period in 2025.