ReportWire

Tag: California Law

  • Student anti-ICE walkouts: Some officials praise activism, others dole out detention

    [ad_1]

    After some 150 students walked out of Redlands schools early this month in support of immigrants they were dealt an unexpected consequence: a temporary suspension of school privileges as administrators enforced rules that forbid them from leaving a classroom without permission.

    The punishment — the loss of access to sports, dances, performances and other school events — in a school system with a conservative-majority governing board stands in sharp contrast to the positive reception that student activism has received in some other California school systems, including Los Angeles Unified School District.

    The disparate actions show how school officials throughout various states and school systems — in blue and red regions — have been dealing with a wave of student walkouts that began in late January as part of national protests over the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement crackdown.

    Redlands school officials said the suspension of privileges will remain in place until a student satisfies certain conditions, such as attending a session of Saturday school or performing four hours of community service.

    “The superintendent’s message is consistent: We care deeply about our students, and we recognize that many young people are dealing and engaging with issues they see in the news and in their community,” said district Public Information Officer Christine Stephens. “Students have the right to express themselves peacefully. At the same time, the district must uphold its responsibility to maintain a safe, supervised learning environment during the school day.”

    Districts that expressed support for students’ free-speech rights included those in San Francisco and Sacramento. In Palo Alto, district officials worked with schools to make sure students could carry out their announced walkout safely.

    L.A. Unified officials have not set districtwide penalties for walkouts — and its leaders align with the students’ anti-ICE critique. Supt. Alberto Carvalho, an immigrant himself, has pledged to do all in the district’s power to maintain schools as sanctuaries for children of immigrant families — and activists patrol outside schools to help ensure safe passage to campus for parents and students.

    At the same time, LAUSD educators have encouraged students to stay on campus for safety reasons. In L.A. there were reports of physical confrontations between officers and protesters after students walked out on Feb. 5 and on Feb. 13, when three federal agents were injured after some in the crowd threw objects at them.

    State and education leaders in Texas and Florida outlined significant consequences for students and educators related to student walkouts. In Texas, state leaders have talked about possible suspension and expulsion for students, dismissal for educators and state takeovers for school districts.

    The ACLU of Georgia sent a letter Jan. 29 expressing concerns to the Cobb County School District after it threatened out-of-school suspension, loss of parking and extracurricular privileges and warned of college admissions consequences for participation in walkouts.

    The ACLU warned that the school system would be acting illegally if walkout participants were singled out for especially harsh treatment based on their viewpoints.

    The young activists

    Student high school activists — in Redlands and elsewhere — said they are willing to face consequences, if necessary, to stand up for what they believe by protesting the actions of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

    “As organizers, it’s expected for us to take the first wave of retaliation,” said Redlands High School senior Jax Hardy. “So while we would be very disappointed in the district for doing such a thing, for us, it’s important to exercise our free speech rights to oppose a government that is encroaching on our human rights.”

    Student leaders see their protests as a civics lesson in action.

    “It’s necessary to act, because, if we don’t, who knows how things will escalate further,” said Redlands High junior Aya F, who goes by her last initial rather than her full legal name. “So that’s why we feel it’s important for us to stage this walkout.”

    Redlands is about 60 miles east of downtown L.A. and enrolls about 20,000 students. In November 2024 a conservative majority was elected to the five-person Redlands Board of Education, aligning the board with key policies of the Trump administration. Redlands joined a handful of ideologically similar California boards in approving policies that would allow parents to challenge library books with sexual content and prohibit display of the rainbow pride flag, which is associated with the LGBTQ+ community.

    But the district stated that its actions on the walkouts have no ideology attached.

    “The district’s response is not based on the viewpoint, theme or content of a student’s expression,” Stephens said.

    Students walk out despite punishment

    Some Redlands students organized another walkout Friday and organizers said they expected representation from students at seven middle and high schools. Many showed up from Redlands High School. They carried “Stop ICE” signs and Mexican flags and blew whistles as they made a 15-minute trek to a downtown intersection that some refer to as “Peace Corner.”

    “I haven’t seen this many people in Redlands do anything ever,” said sophomore James Bojado, who also said that, for days, administrators had attempted to dissuade students with threats of discipline.

    Several Redlands police vehicles patrolled the rally area, slowly rolling by.

    A man in a sun hat shouted: “Why don’t you fly the American flag? Are you ashamed of America?”

    “Leave us alone!” a chorus responded.

    “My mom and my dad are immigrants,” said sophomore Carmen Robles. “Why deport families that care about America back to where they came from?”

    At the rally, student demands included an ironclad district commitment that ICE will never be allowed on campus. Students also called for the abolition of ICE and spoke of wanting the school board to rescind what they regard as anti-LGBTQ+ policies. These include the flag ban and the book restriction policy.

    During the Friday Redlands rally, there were a few tense minutes when a student in a MAGA hat was pelted by water bottles. The student spoke to police but also said he wasn’t hurt.

    A person wearing a MAGA hat gets water and pizza thrown at him during a student walkout and protest in Redlands.

    (Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

    Adult volunteers were on hand with the goal of keeping things safe and positive. Parent Toni Belcher said that students have a right to be heard.

    “I’m happy to see all these kids trying to get their voice to matter,” Belcher said. “If it doesn’t now, it will. … They’re starting early.”

    What the law says

    The right of students to express themselves begins with the U.S. Constitution.

    “You do not lose your right to free speech just by walking into school,” according to guidance from the American Civil Liberties Union. “You have the right to speak out, hand out flyers and petitions and wear expressive clothing in school — as long as you don’t disrupt the functioning of the school or violate the school’s content-neutral policies.”

    A walkout, however, could be treated as a disruption. But greater punishment cannot be applied based on the nature of the views expressed.

    Redlands Unified believes it is complying with that legal standard.

    California law offers some additional protection for student protests, but it’s not unlimited.

    A California law, which took effect in 2023, allows a middle or high school student to miss one day of school per year as an excused absence for a “civic or political event.” This includes, but is not limited to, “voting, poll-working, strikes, public-commenting, candidate speeches, political or civic forums and town halls.”

    The bill’s author, then-state Sen. Connie Leyva, said at the time that the law “emphasizes the importance of getting students more involved in government and their community by prioritizing student opportunities for civic learning and engagement both within and outside their education.”

    One caveat is that the law requires that “the pupil notifies the school ahead of the absence.”

    Students exercising this right must be allowed to make up missed schoolwork without penalty. There are potential gray areas — such as whether a large-scale school walkout — which organizers intend to be dramatic — would fall outside this protection because students don’t formally check out, for example.

    One Redlands parent said he notified the school that his son had permission to take part in an earlier walkout after the walkout. But his son was still penalized because, the parent said, he was not allowed to grant permission for his son retroactively.

    State law does require advance notice, but it does not say parental permission is required for that one protected civic activity day per year. The law also stipulates that schools, at their discretion, can allow additional excused absences for civic participation.

    The parent, who did not want to be named out of concern for retaliation, said his son was placed on a “No-Go List” for extracurricular activities and events.

    [ad_2]

    Howard Blume, Christopher Buchanan

    Source link

  • Supreme Court appears likely to strike down California law banning guns in stores and restaurants

    [ad_1]

    Do licensed gun owners have a right to carry a loaded weapon into stores, restaurants and other private places that are open to the public?

    California and Hawaii are among five states with new laws that forbid carrying firearms onto private property without the consent of an owner or manager. But the Trump administration joined gun-rights advocates on Tuesday in urging the Supreme Court to strike down these laws as unconstitutional under the 2nd Amendment.

    Such a law “effectively nullifies licenses to carry arms in public,” Trump’s lawyers said.

    If you “stop at a gasoline station, you are committing a crime,” Deputy Solicitor Gen. Sarah Harris told the court.

    An attorney representing Hawaii said the issue is one of property rights, not gun rights.

    “An invitation to shop is not an invitation to bring your Glock,” Washington attorney Neal Katyal told the court. “There is no constitutional right to enter property that includes a right to bring firearms.”

    The justices sounded split along the usual ideological lines, with the court’s conservatives signaling they are likely to strike down the new laws in five Democratic-led states.

    “You are relegating the 2nd Amendment to second-class status,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. told Katyal.

    He said the court had ruled law-abiding persons have a right to carry a firearm for self-defense when they leave home. That would include going to stores or businesses that are open to the public.

    “If the owners don’t like guns, why don’t they just put up a sign?” Alito said.

    Both sides agreed that business owners are generally free to allow or prohibit guns on their property. However, state officials said, the laws are important because business owners rarely post signs that either welcome or forbid the carrying of guns.

    Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the 2nd Amendment should have the same standing as the 1st Amendment.

    He said it was understood based on the 1st Amendment that a political candidate may walk up to a house and knock on the door or drop off a pamphlet. He questioned why the court should uphold a law that limits gun owners from entering places that are open to the public.

    Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh said they too believed the “right to keep and bear arms” included the right to carry weapons, including into stores.

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson said property rights should prevail over gun rights.

    “Is there a right to go on private property with a gun?” Sotomayor asked repeatedly. She said the court had never upheld such a broad right.

    But with the possible exception of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, none of the conservatives agreed.

    Four years ago, the court ruled law-abiding gun owners had a right to carry a concealed weapon for self-defense when they left home. They also said then that guns may be prohibited in “sensitive places” but they did not decide what that meant.

    In the wake of that decision, California, Hawaii, New York, New Jersey and Maryland adopted new laws that restricted carrying guns in public places, including parks and beaches.

    The laws also said gun owners may not take a gun into a privately owned business without the “express authorization” of an owner or manager. California’s law went a step further and said the owner must post a clear sign allowing guns.

    The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the laws from Hawaii and California, except for the required posting of a sign in California.

    Three Hawaii residents with concealed carry permits appealed to the Supreme Court and won the backing of the Trump administration.

    [ad_2]

    David G. Savage

    Source link

  • Lawsuits against ICE agents would be allowed under proposed California law

    [ad_1]

    A week after a Minnesota woman was fatally shot by a federal immigration officer, California legislators moved forward a bill that would make it easier for people to sue federal agents if they believe their constitutional rights were violated.

    A Senate committee passed Senate Bill 747 by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), which would provide Californians with a stronger ability to take legal action against federal law enforcement agents over excessive use of force, unlawful home searches, interfering with a right to protest and other violations.

    California law already allows such suits against state and local law enforcement officials.

    Successful civil suits against federal officers over constitutional rights are less common.

    Wiener, appearing before Tuesday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, said his bill has taken on new urgency in the wake of the death of Renee Nicole Good in Minnesota, the 37-year-old mother of three who was shot while driving on a snowy Minneapolis street.

    Good was shot by an agent in self-defense, said Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who alleged that Good tried to use her car as a weapon to run over the immigration officer.

    Good’s death outraged Democratic leaders across the country, who accuse federal officers of flouting laws in their efforts to deport thousands of undocumented immigrants. In New York, legislators are proposing legislation similar to the one proposed by Wiener that would allow state-level civil actions against federal officers.

    George Retes Jr., a U.S. citizen and Army veteran who was kept in federal custody for three days in July, described his ordeal at Tuesday’s committee hearing, and how immigration officers swarmed him during a raid in Camarillo.

    Retes, a contracted security guard at the farm that was raided, said he was brought to Port Hueneme Naval Base. Officials swabbed his cheek to obtain DNA, and then moved him to Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles. He was not allowed to make a phone call or see an attorney, he said.

    “I did not resist, I did not impede or assault any agent,” Retes said.”What happened to me that day was not a misunderstanding. It was a violation of the Constitution by the very people sworn to uphold it.”

    He also accused Department of Homeland security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin of spreading false information about him to justify his detention. DHS said in a statement last year that Retes impeded their operation, which he denies.

    Retes has filed a tort claim against the U.S. government, a process that is rarely successful, said his attorney, Anya Bidwell.

    Lawsuits can also be brought through the Bivens doctrine, which refers to the 1971 Supreme Court ruling Bivens vs. Six Unknown Federal Agents that established that federal officials can be sued for monetary damages for constitutional violations. But in recent decades, the Supreme Court has repeatedly restricted the ability to sue under Bivens.

    Wiener’s bill, if passed by the legislature and signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, would be retroactive to March 2025.

    “We’ve had enough of this terror campaign in our communities by ICE,” said Wiener at a news conference before the hearing. “We need the rule of law and we need accountability.”

    Weiner is running for the congressional seat held by former House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco).

    Representatives for law enforcement agencies appeared at Tuesday’s hearing to ask for amendments to ensure that the bill wouldn’t lead to weakened protections for state and local officials.

    “We’re not opposed to the intent of the bill. We’re just concerned about the future and the unintended consequences for your California employees,” said David Mastagni, speaking on behalf of the Peace Officers Research Assn. of California, which represents more than 85,000 public safety members.

    Wiener’s bill is the latest effort by the state Legislature to challenge President Trump’s immigration raids. Newsom last year signed legislation authored by Wiener that prohibits law enforcement officials, including federal immigration agents, from wearing masks, with some exceptions.

    The U.S. Department of Justice sued last year to block the law, and a hearing in the case is scheduled for Wednesday.

    [ad_2]

    Dakota Smith

    Source link

  • Supreme Court urged to block California laws requiring companies to disclose climate impacts

    [ad_1]

    The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups urged the Supreme Court on Friday to block new California laws that will require thousands of companies to disclose their emissions and their impacts on climate change.

    One of the laws is due to take effect on Jan. 1, and the emergency appeal asks the court to put it on hold temporarily.

    Their lawyers argue the measures violate the 1st Amendment because the state would be forcing companies to speak on its preferred topic.

    “In less than eight weeks, California will compel thousands of companies across the nation to speak on the deeply controversial topic of climate change,” they said in an appeal that also spoke for the California Chamber of Commerce and the Los Angeles County Business Federation.

    They say the two new laws would require companies to disclose the “climate-related risks” they foresee and how their operations and emissions contribute to climate change.

    “Both laws are part of California’s open campaign to force companies into the public debate on climate issues and pressure them to alter their behavior,” they said. Their aim, according to their sponsors, is to “make sure that the public actually knows who’s green and who isn’t.”

    One law, Senate Bill 261, will require several thousand companies that do business in California to assess their “climate-related financial risk” and how they may reduce that risk. A second measure, SB 253, which applies to larger companies, requires them to assess and disclose their emissions and how their operations could affect the climate.

    The appeal argues these laws amount to unconstitutional compelled speech.

    “No state may violate 1st Amendment rights to set climate policy for the Nation. Compelled-speech laws are presumptively unconstitutional — especially where, as here, they dictate a value-laden script on a controversial subject such as climate change,” they argue.

    Officials with the California Air Resources Board, whose chair Lauren Sanchez was named as defendant, said the agency does not comment on pending litigation.

    The first-in-the-nation carbon disclosure laws were widely celebrated by environmental advocates at the time of their passage, with the nonprofit California Environmental Voters describing them as a “game-changer not just for our state but for the entire world.”

    Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who authored SB 253, said at the time that the laws were “a simple but powerful tool in the fight to tackle climate change.”

    “When corporations are transparent about the full scope of their emissions, they have the tools and incentives to tackle them,” Wiener said.

    Michael Gerrard, a climate-change legal expert at Columbia University, described Friday’s motion as “the latest example of businesses and conservatives weaponizing the 1st Amendment.” He pointed to the Citizens United case, which said businesses have a free speech right to unlimited campaign contributions, as another example.

    “Exxon tried and failed to use this argument in 2022 when it attempted to block an investigation by the Massachusetts Attorney General into whether it misled consumers and investors about the risks of climate change,” he said in an email. “Exxon claimed this investigation violated its First Amendment rights; the Massachusetts courts rejected this attempt.”

    Under the Biden administration, the Securities and Exchange Commission adopted similar climate-change disclosure rules. Companies would have been required to disclose the impact of climate change on their business and what they intended to do to mitigate the risk.

    But the Chamber of Commerce sued and won a lower court ruling that blocked those rules.

    And in March, Trump appointees said the SEC would retreat and not defend the “costly and unnecessarily intrusive climate-change disclosure rules.”

    The emergency appeal challenging California’s disclosure laws was filed by Washington attorney Eugene Scalia, a son of the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

    The companies have tried and failed to persuade judges in California to block the measures. Exxon Mobil filed a suit in Sacramento, while the Chamber of Commerce sued in Los Angeles.

    In August, U.S. District Judge Otis Wright II in Los Angeles refused to block the laws on the grounds they “regulate commercial speech,” which gets less protection under the 1st Amendment. He said businesses are routinely required to disclose financial data and factual information on their operations.

    The business lawyers said they had appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals asking for an injunction, but no action has been taken.

    Shortly after the chamber’s appeal was filed, state attorneys for Iowa and 24 other Republican-leaning states joined in support. They said they “strongly oppose this radical green speech mandate that California seeks to impose on companies.”

    The justices are likely to ask for a response next week from California’s state attorneys before acting on the appeal.

    Savage reported from Washington, D.C., Smith from Los Angeles.

    [ad_2]

    David G. Savage, Hayley Smith

    Source link

  • As concerns loom over sex abuse payouts, L.A. County finalizes $828-million settlement

    [ad_1]

    L.A. County supervisors have unanimously approved an $828-million settlement for alleged victims of childhood sexual abuse, finalizing the deal while questions mount over the legitimacy of some claims in a separate multibillion-dollar payout that they agreed to this spring.

    The settlement approved Tuesday brings the county’s spending on sex abuse litigation this year to nearly $5 billion, with the bulk of that total coming from a $4-billion deal made in April to resolve thousands of claims filed by people who said they were abused decades ago in county-run juvenile detention centers and foster homes.

    The latest settlement involves similar claims brought by 414 clients of three law firms who opted to negotiate separately from the rest. The $4-billion settlement initially covered roughly 6,800 claims, but has ballooned to more than 11,000.

    The larger settlement has come under scrutiny after The Times found nine people who said they were paid to sue. Four said they were told to fabricate the claims. All had lawsuits filed by Downtown LA Law Group, which represents more than 2,700 clients in the first settlement.

    The firm has denied paying clients to sue and said it has “systems in place to help weed out false or exaggerated allegations.” The firm has asked the court to dismiss three claims on behalf of allegedly fraudulent plaintiffs this month.

    Downtown LA Law Group will be required to detail any claims that came to it through recruiters, the county’s top attorney said Tuesday. The firm has denied any wrongdoing.

    (Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

    The settlement approved Tuesday involves cases only from Arias Sanguinetti Wang & Team, Manly, Stewart & Finaldi, and Panish Shea Ravipudi and has no cases from DTLA. But the firm nevertheless took center stage Tuesday as the supervisors pressed their top attorney on how the lawsuits were vetted.

    “What were we doing prior to this article?” said Supervisor Kathryn Barger, referencing The Times’ reporting from earlier this month.

    The county was in a tough spot, county counsel Dawyn Harrison explained. Many plaintiff attorneys didn’t want the county interviewing their clients, she said. And a judge had temporarily paused the discovery process, providing the county little insight into the identities of the thousands of people suing.

    Harrison said Tuesday that DTLA cases now will be required to go through a “completely new level of review” beyond the standard vetting that was already underway by retired Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Louis Meisinger. In addition to having a new retired Superior Court judge vet all their cases, DTLA must provide the county with information on plaintiffs acquired through “a recruiter or vendor,” she said.

    “DTLA is required to identify every recruiter it used, a list of each plaintiff brought in per recruiter, information about any funds that changed hands, and a declaration under oath by each recruiter identifying what was done, what was said, and any monies paid,” Harrison said.

    It’s an unusual request.

    California law bans a practice known as capping, in which non-attorneys directly solicit or procure clients to sign up for lawsuits with a law firm.

    DTLA has denied knowledge of any of its clients receiving payments to sue and said the firm wants “justice for real victims” of sexual abuse.

    “If we ever became aware that anyone associated with us, in any capacity, did such a thing, we would end our relationship with them immediately,” the firm said.

    The rush of lawsuits was kicked off by a now-controversial bill known as AB 218, which changed the statute of limitations for victims of sexual abuse and created a new window to sue. The county, which is responsible for the safety of children inside juvenile carceral facilities and foster care, has seen more than 12,000 claims and counting since the law took effect in 2020.

    The allegations of fraud that now hover over these cases was the fault of “an unmanageable law,” not the county’s vetting process, Harrison said.

    “AB 218 erased those guardrails and allowed decades-old claims that no one can meaningfully vet,” she said.

    The county’s lawyers and politicians have become increasingly loud critics of the law, which they say has left them facing a deluge of decades-old claims with no records. Supervisor Hilda Solis said she felt the county had become the “guinea pig” for the bill.

    Joe Nicchitta, the county’s acting chief executive officer, estimated that anywhere between $1 billion to $2 billion in county taxpayer money from the settlements will go to attorneys.

    “The law had some very noble intentions but it has been … and I’m just going to say what I think, hijacked by the plaintiff’s bar,” he said. “They do all of the vetting, they do all of the intake, they advertise extensively. They’re incentivized to bring as many cases as possible.”

    Nicchitta said he’d heard rumors that venture capitalists were poking around Sacramento to find out “whether or not we have enough cash to pay for another settlement, so that they can finance a law firm to bring another round of settlements against us.”

    “It’s clear to me the system is ruptured,” he said.

    Courtney Thom, who was the lead attorney on cases from Manly, Stewart & Finaldi, said she believed the county was blaming the new state law for the failures of its own lawyers.

    “To blame AB 218 and say that’s what enabled the fraud is just a pathetic attempt to deflect responsibility,” Thom said. “Our firm has been saying for two years we’re concerned about fraud.”

    Mike Arias, who represents clients in the latest settlement as a partner with Arias Sanguinetti Wang & Team, said the three firms involved stopped adding clients more than a year ago.

    “That’s a big distinction,” Arias said. “We said, at the time, the number of plaintiffs would not change. Ethically, my view was that’s who we represent and who we’re going to negotiate for.”

    Arias said the allocation for the second settlement will be done by retired Orange County Superior Court Judge Gail Andler, who specializes in overseeing sexual abuse litigation. Potential payouts will range between $750,000 and $3.25 million, he said.

    Victims say the money represents a sliver of justice for the abuse they say they suffered while confined in county custody — little of which has been criminally prosecuted.

    One man, who is part of the settlement and asked not to be identified, said he has no idea what happened to the probation official who he alleges raped him at around 16 while he was asleep in his cell at Barry J. Nidorf Juvenile Hall, knocked out on sleep medication.

    “I had no control in that place,” said the man, now 34. “My body hasn’t ever felt the same since.”

    The county has launched an "AB 218 Fraud hotline"

    The county has launched an “AB 218 fraud hotline” where tipsters can report misconduct related to the flood of sex abuse claims.

    (Rebecca Ellis / Los Angeles Times)

    The county recently launched an “AB 218 fraud hotline” where tipsters can report misconduct related to the flood of claims. The county says it also plans to start a hotline for victims to safely report allegations of sex abuse in its facilities.

    “It is illegal for anyone to file, pay for, or receive payments for making fake claims of childhood sexual abuse,” states a banner now running atop the county website with a hand doling out hundred-dollar bills.

    The county also has launched a website that asks people to report if they were offered cash to sue, which law firms were involved, and whether they were coached, among other questions.

    Supervisor Holly Mitchell, whose district includes the South Central social services office where seven people told The Times they were paid to sue, said she wanted to see the hotlines advertised as aggressively as the plaintiff attorneys advertised for their cases.

    “You couldn’t turn on an urban radio station without hearing a commercial advertising these cases,” Mitchell said. “I certainly hope whatever we use, as we talk about our outreach, that we lean in as hard.”

    [ad_2]

    Rebecca Ellis

    Source link

  • New California law banning officers, agents from covering their faces sparks enforcement debate

    [ad_1]

    California has become the first state to ban most law enforcement officers, including federal immigration agents, from covering their faces while on duty.Governor Gavin Newsom signed what sponsors have called the “No Secret Police Act” into law on Saturday.The law, which takes effect on Jan. 1, 2026, makes exceptions for the use of motorcycle or other safety helmets, sunglasses, or other standard law enforcement gear not designed with the purpose of hiding anyone’s identity. The California Highway Patrol is also exempt. Officers who violate the law could face charges or lose their qualified immunity.The bill was a direct response to recent immigration raids in California, where federal agents wore masks while making arrests.”ICE. Unmask. What are you afraid of? What are you afraid of? What are you afraid of? You’re going to go out and you’re going to do enforcement. Provide an ID,” Newsom said Saturday at a news conference in Los Angeles.Right now, it’s not clear how or if state can enforce the ban on federal agents.Acting U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli posted on X Saturday saying California has no jurisdiction over the federal government. “I’ve directed our federal agencies that the law signed today has no effect on our operations. Our agents will continue to protect their identities,” he said in a post to X. As for local jurisdictions, Sgt. Amar Gandhi with the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office said lawmakers are creating a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.”This will have no consequence to quite literally anybody. They have no jurisdiction over federal authorities. When is the last time you walked outside and saw a patrolman in a mask? It doesn’t happen,” he said. “It’s absolutely stupid and useless. This doesn’t affect anybody it’s intended to effect.”Advocacy groups like NorCal Resist said they are looking forward to learning about how the new law will be enforced. They sent a statement reading in part, “We are encouraged to see steps being taken to end these disturbing, secret police tactics that have created terror in our immigrant communities.”The White House also sent a statement to KCRA 3. It reads in part, “ICE officers wear masks to protect themselves and their families from being doxed. ICE officers act heroically to enforce the law and protect American communities with the utmost professionalism. Anyone pointing the finger at law enforcement officers instead of the criminals are simply doing the bidding of criminal illegal aliens.”Newsom signed the bill along with several others aimed at protecting California’s immigrant communities.The package of legislation would require that families be notified when immigration agents come on school campuses and require a judicial warrant or court order before giving student information or classroom access to ICE.The new legislation would also require a warrant or court order before allowing agents access to emergency rooms and other nonpublic areas of a hospital. And it would clarify that immigration information collected by a health care provider is medical information.See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    California has become the first state to ban most law enforcement officers, including federal immigration agents, from covering their faces while on duty.

    Governor Gavin Newsom signed what sponsors have called the “No Secret Police Act” into law on Saturday.

    The law, which takes effect on Jan. 1, 2026, makes exceptions for the use of motorcycle or other safety helmets, sunglasses, or other standard law enforcement gear not designed with the purpose of hiding anyone’s identity. The California Highway Patrol is also exempt.

    Officers who violate the law could face charges or lose their qualified immunity.

    The bill was a direct response to recent immigration raids in California, where federal agents wore masks while making arrests.

    “ICE. Unmask. What are you afraid of? What are you afraid of? What are you afraid of? You’re going to go out and you’re going to do enforcement. Provide an ID,” Newsom said Saturday at a news conference in Los Angeles.

    Right now, it’s not clear how or if state can enforce the ban on federal agents.

    Acting U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli posted on X Saturday saying California has no jurisdiction over the federal government.

    “I’ve directed our federal agencies that the law signed today has no effect on our operations. Our agents will continue to protect their identities,” he said in a post to X.

    As for local jurisdictions, Sgt. Amar Gandhi with the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office said lawmakers are creating a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

    “This will have no consequence to quite literally anybody. They have no jurisdiction over federal authorities. When is the last time you walked outside and saw a patrolman in a mask? It doesn’t happen,” he said. “It’s absolutely stupid and useless. This doesn’t affect anybody it’s intended to effect.”

    Advocacy groups like NorCal Resist said they are looking forward to learning about how the new law will be enforced. They sent a statement reading in part, “We are encouraged to see steps being taken to end these disturbing, secret police tactics that have created terror in our immigrant communities.”

    The White House also sent a statement to KCRA 3. It reads in part, “ICE officers wear masks to protect themselves and their families from being doxed. ICE officers act heroically to enforce the law and protect American communities with the utmost professionalism. Anyone pointing the finger at law enforcement officers instead of the criminals are simply doing the bidding of criminal illegal aliens.”

    Newsom signed the bill along with several others aimed at protecting California’s immigrant communities.

    The package of legislation would require that families be notified when immigration agents come on school campuses and require a judicial warrant or court order before giving student information or classroom access to ICE.

    The new legislation would also require a warrant or court order before allowing agents access to emergency rooms and other nonpublic areas of a hospital. And it would clarify that immigration information collected by a health care provider is medical information.

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump Leads Charge Against California’s Redistricting With DOJ Action

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump announced that the Department of Justice (DOJ) will pursue a lawsuit against California over its new congressional map.

    Trump declared in the Oval Office that the DOJ would file the lawsuit to challenge the California map, which would add five Democratic seats to the U.S. House if approved by voters in a special November election.

    “I think I’m going to be filing a lawsuit pretty soon, and I think we’re going to be very successful in it,” said the President, per CNBC.

    “We’re going to be filing it through the Department of Justice. That’s going to happen.”

    Trump did not specify the grounds under which the DOJ would file the lawsuit.

    Newsom quickly responded to the potential lawsuit on social media, stating that California is prepared to take on the challenges.

     

    This redistricting effort in California follows numerous warnings from Gov. Gavin Newsom that the state would take action if Texas creates a new map, as previously reported by The Dallas Express.

    Under California law, an independent commission generally handles redistricting. Still, Newsom and the California legislature passed a bill to put a new measure on the November ballot, according to the National Review. The measure asks voters whether to temporarily suspend that commission until after the 2030 Census, allowing Democrats to redraw districts for the 2026, 2028, and 2030 election cycles.

    The ballot initiative has split public opinion, with a recent UC Berkeley poll showing 48% in favor, 36% opposed, and 20% undecided, per the National Review.

    This new map also directly counters Texas Republicans’ mid-decade gerrymandering efforts by enabling Democrats to try to regain an electoral edge in congressional representation.

    These changes in California come just days after the Texas legislature announced that a new congressional map had been approved by both the Texas Senate and House of Representatives, with the responsibility now falling upon Gov. Greg Abbott to approve the changes, as previously reported by The Dallas Express.

    The updated Texas map would give Republicans five additional U.S. House seats, which would be offset by the five seats gained by Democrats in the new California congressional map.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Stockton man thrust into national spotlight after fatal collision in Florida

    [ad_1]

    Aug. 20—A long-haul truck driver accused of killing three people in a Florida traffic collision was arrested in San Joaquin County over the weekend.

    Newsweek reported on Monday that 28-year-old Stockton resident Harjinder Singh was arrested by U.S. Marshals on suspicion of three counts of vehicular homicide.

    He was booked into San Joaquin County Jail on Saturday, and appeared for arraignment Tuesday, according to inmate records.

    The Miami Herald reported that the Aug. 12 crash occurred when Singh attempted to make a U-turn in his 18-wheeler at an “official use only” area of the Florida Turnpike 19 miles north of Fort Pierce.

    The truck was blocking all the northbound lanes as a 2015 black Chrysler Town & Country minivan approached in the middle lane and slammed into the 18-wheeler, killing its three occupants.

    Two passengers in the minivan — a 37-year-old woman from Pompano Beach and a 54-year-old man from Miami — died at the scene. The driver, a 30-year-old man from Florida City, later died at a hospital, according to the Herald.

    Neither Singh or as his passenger, 25-year-old Harneet Singh of Yuba City, were injured in the collision.

    The pair flew to Sacramento on Aug. 13, as law enforcement does not make an arrest at the scene of vehicle crashes, the Herald reported.

    Vehicular homicide is punishable by as much as 15 years in prison in that state.

    According to Newsweek, federal immigration authorities have issued a detainer which could lead to deportation proceedings once the criminal case is concluded, reports state.

    In his monthly address to the public posted on social media, San Joaquin County Sheriff Pat Withrow said he was not able to hold Singh, an undocumented immigrant, on an ICE hold due to California law.

    “He’s from out of the country, and he’s here illegally, but California does not allow me to honor the ICE hold because he has committed no prior crimes,” Withrow said. “We don’t know if this was gross negligence or an intentional act.”

    The Florida Highway Patrol told the Herald that Singh, who has a commercial driver’s license in California, entered the United States illegally in 2018 through the Mexican border.

    It’s unclear how he obtained a commercial driver’s license, as California law requires applicants to show proof they are in the U.S. legally, among other requirements, according to the California Commercial Driver’s Handbook.

    California’s AB 60 allows undocumented immigrants to apply for a driver’s license if they can provide proof of identity and residency. These licenses are marked “not for federal identification.”

    Singh had been linked online to a 2019 crash in Arkansas that destroyed a historic bridge, but officials confirmed to Newsweek Monday he wasn’t involved in that accident.

    That driver, also named Harjinder Singh, was fired by the US Citylink Corporation following the crash, reports state.

    News of the Florida crash went national, the Herald reported, with Singh being at the center of several social media posts by the Trump administration on Sunday and Monday, prompting a response from Gov. Gavin Newsom.

    In one post, Newsom’s press office said the federal government issued Singh an employment authorization document during Trump’s first term, which allows foreign nationals to work legally in the U.S.

    In response, Tricia McLaughlin, the assistant secretary for public affairs at the Department of Homeland Security, said Singh’s work authorization was rejected in 2020 while Trump was in office and approved the following year under the Biden administration, the Herald reported.

    San Joaquin County District Attorney Ron Freitas filed a petition for a fugitive warrant against Singh on Tuesday. Singh agreed to waive extradition and awaiting transport to Florida.

    “Public safety depends on strong collaboration between states,” Freitas said. “Our office has fulfilled its role in this matter, and Harjinder Singh will now face consequences in Florida.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Affordable housing on church parking lots? A new law makes it easier to build

    Affordable housing on church parking lots? A new law makes it easier to build

    [ad_1]

    The Rev. Paul Anthony Daniels knows the names and life stories of the people who sleep in their cars near St. Mary, a century-old church in Palms.

    In the past, homeless people have spent the night in St. Mary’s Sunday school room.

    So it wasn’t a huge leap for Daniels to think about building affordable housing on the church property.

    A place to sleep, bathe and cook “provides a basic dignity” that can turn around someone’s life and also help the neighborhood, said Daniels.

    “The unhoused are a part of this community,” he added. “Not only in the sense that we shelter them, but also in the sense that they live literally around the property.”

    Across Los Angeles, some religious leaders are sizing up their own properties, encouraged by new legislation making it easier to develop the land.

    A California law that went into effect Jan. 1 allows affordable housing projects on property owned by churches, temples, mosques and other religious institutions to bypass an extensive review process and to be built in single-family neighborhoods. The city of Los Angeles is considering even more exemptions.

    An aerial view of St. Mary in Palms, center, where some of the land owned by the church may eventually be leased for affordable housing.

    (Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times)

    In L.A., which has little vacant land, sky-high rents and a homeless population that topped 45,000 at last count, affordable housing proponents view religious institutions — often land-rich but cash-poor — as an untapped resource.

    For religious leaders, building their own housing could be a way to fulfill their missions of helping needy people. And with many congregations shrinking as Americans become less religious, revenue from the developments would help make up for dwindling collection boxes.

    But some real estate experts question whether many religious organizations will ultimately seek to build, considering the buy-in required from their members and governing boards. Years of construction near their sanctuaries could be a deterrent, as could opposition from neighbors.

    Some cities, including Chino, Rancho Palos Verdes, Santa Clarita and Thousand Oaks, opposed the new state law as it was being debated in Sacramento. Then-Beverly Hills Mayor Lili Bosse said it would strip local governments of their power to control development, “overriding carefully crafted, locally informed plans.”

    Leaders at St. Mary, an Episcopal church in the Anglo-Catholic tradition, are in the early stages of studying the idea. The small congregation is close-knit, with a few dozen people attending a typical Sunday service in the diminutive, brown-shingled church. An affordable housing project would enrich church coffers, probably through leasing fees paid by the developer.

    The St. Mary property includes two main buildings, a house and six parking spaces on a narrow strip of land in a neighborhood of apartment buildings. Daniels, who has led St. Mary since 2022, said it’s too soon to say where on the property the new housing would go.

    A man sits on a pew in a church.

    The Rev. Paul Anthony Daniels, the rector of St. Mary in Palms.

    (Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times)

    In South Los Angeles, with its abundance of historically Black churches, many congregations are still reeling from the pandemic and a decline in attendance.

    Regina Fair, a board member at Bethel AME-Los Angeles, said her church draws a few hundred people on Sundays but has cut back to a single sermon.

    Like other churches, Bethel AME, which was founded in 1921, relied on livestreaming during the pandemic lockdown and uses social media to reach younger people. That all means fewer dollars in the collection plate.

    “People became OK with doing church in their home, on their couch,” Fair said. “And when you’re not in the church, it makes a big impact on the giving.”

    Bethel AME, which faces a stretch of South Western Avenue lined with businesses and apartment buildings, has embarked on a multiyear plan to develop affordable housing on its parking lot.

    The 53-unit project, which benefited from city rules intended to fast-track affordable housing, will cater to some of the homeless men who sleep in the church on cots during the winter. The church also plans to build housing on two nearby parcels it owns.

    Logos Faith Housing, which is co-developing the property, was started by a pastor to help churches build affordable housing. Bethel is leasing the land to a collection of backers in what the church’s leader, the Rev. Kelvin T. Calloway, describes as a “perfect model” to bring in revenue over a long period.

    Calloway has seen gentrification change other neighborhoods in South L.A., leaving fewer worshipers in church pews. That isn’t happening much yet in Bethel AME’s neighborhood of Manchester Square, but “it’s a real possibility,” he said.

    A man looks up a a building under construction.

    Pastor Martin Porter, managing partner of Logos Faith Development LLC, a real estate development company focused on partnering with religious entities, on the parking lot of Bethel AME Church in Los Angeles.

    (Myung J. Chun/Los Angeles Times)

    “Christianity is in crisis,” said Logos founder Pastor Martin Porter, who leads Quinn African Methodist Episcopal in Moreno Valley. “You’re seeing a lot of empty pews. The natural question is: What do we do with excess property that’s not being used?”

    Bethel AME didn’t need the new state law, sponsored by state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), to develop its property.

    But in L.A., at least 600 sites owned by faith-based groups in single-family neighborhoods are now eligible to build affordable housing, according to the city Planning Department. City officials couldn’t provide information about whether any applications have been filed under the law in the last eight months.

    Wiener predicted it will take a few years for a substantial number of projects to launch — particularly as religious institutions figure out how to approach the opportunity.

    “They’re typically not major financial players,” he told The Times. “They’re a church or synagogue, not a development company.”

    “This is a big deal,” said Pastor John Oh, project manager of faith in housing at L.A. Voice, a community organization that supported the law.

    Oh sees it as a potential “domino” that could lead to more zoning changes in single-family neighborhoods, which have long been treated by political leaders as off-limits for multi-unit development.

    The city of L.A.’s planning department has put forward a version that, unlike Wiener’s law, does not require paying construction workers prevailing wages, or, on larger projects, providing them with healthcare.

    The proposal, which is expected to come before the City Council in the next six months, is meant to appease affordable housing developers who say that the higher wages and benefits can add 30% to their costs.

    Labor unions, including the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, are opposed.

    Pete Rodriguez, the brotherhood’s western district vice president, called the proposal “outrageous” and suggested it could worsen the homelessness crisis by impoverishing workers.

    “When will the city of L.A. realize that so many of our problems, from homelessness to budget deficits, are caused by the simple fact that too many Angelenos cannot make ends meet?” he said.

    Wiener declined to comment on the city’s proposal. He said his law prioritizes protections for construction workers, who can be targets of wage theft.

    Some development experts privately question whether religious entities in single-family neighborhoods will want to build affordable housing, in the face of possible resistance.

    In Laguna Beach, some residents are protesting a church’s plans to build affordable housing under Wiener’s law. A petition against the development on the property of Neighborhood Congregational Church has collected about 1,500 signatures.

    “It affects the entire community by altering the neighborhood’s character and exacerbating existing issues such as traffic congestion and parking shortages,” the petition said.

    But Bishop Lovester Adams, who heads Greater New St. Matthew Missionary Baptist Church in a single-family residential area in South L.A., isn’t shying away. He called Wiener’s law and the city proposal “a game changer.”

    Adams, who is also a senior associate at Logos Development, said he can’t afford to build housing on his church’s parking lot at 36th and Crawford streets unless the city passes the labor exemption.

    The church, which dates to the 1960s, is nestled between homes and duplexes. Church leaders regularly give out food and toys to needy residents.

    Attendance has fallen since the pandemic, Adams said. Sunday services draw 50 to 70 people, who fill fewer than half the seats. Some older people stay away because of concerns about COVID-19.

    Adams said he wants veterans to live in the new housing: “There is a great need there.”

    A woman stands in a parking lot near buildings.

    IKAR CEO Melissa Balaban stands in the foundation’s parking lot where affordable housing will be developed in Los Angeles.

    (Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

    On South Fairfax Avenue in Mid-Wilshire, the Jewish congregation IKAR is building an affordable housing complex for formerly homeless senior citizens on its parking lot.

    The project was built through Mayor Karen Bass’ Executive Directive 1, which fast-tracks affordable housing, said IKAR executive director Melissa Balaban. State legislation pushed by IKAR reduced the amount of required parking.

    Balaban said IKAR isn’t relying on the project, which is being funded by a nonprofit developer, to generate revenue for the congregation.

    “My hope is that what we’re doing isn’t just going to provide 60 homes but hopefully inspire other faith-based communities,” she said.

    In Palms, St. Mary member Julia Bergstrom, 72, is enthusiastic about the idea of affordable housing on the church property.

    She has noticed the number of people living in RVs rise and fall, and she finds the years-long wait for Section 8 housing vouchers to be “immoral.”

    While she worries about changes to the “very beautiful little church” she has attended since 2008, “it doesn’t stop me, and it doesn’t make me sad about the whole thing,” she said.

    [ad_2]

    Dakota Smith

    Source link

  • California is racing to combat deepfakes ahead of the election

    California is racing to combat deepfakes ahead of the election

    [ad_1]

    Days after Vice President Kamala Harris launched her presidential bid, a video — created with the help of artificial intelligence — went viral.

    “I … am your Democrat candidate for president because Joe Biden finally exposed his senility at the debate,” a voice that sounded like Harris’ said in the fake audio track used to alter one of her campaign ads. “I was selected because I am the ultimate diversity hire.”

    Billionaire Elon Musk — who has endorsed Harris’ Republican opponent, former President Trump— shared the video on X, then clarified two days later that it was actually meant as a parody. His initial tweet had 136 million views. The follow-up calling the video a parody garnered 26 million views.

    To Democrats, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom, the incident was no laughing matter, fueling calls for more regulation to combat AI-generated videos with political messages and a fresh debate over the appropriate role for government in trying to contain emerging technology.

    On Friday, California lawmakers gave final approval to a bill that would prohibit the distribution of deceptive campaign ads or “election communication” within 120 days of an election. Assembly Bill 2839 targets manipulated content that would harm a candidate’s reputation or electoral prospects along with confidence in an election’s outcome. It’s meant to address videos like the one Musk shared of Harris, though it includes an exception for parody and satire.

    “We’re looking at California entering its first-ever election during which disinformation that’s powered by generative AI is going to pollute our information ecosystems like never before and millions of voters are not going to know what images, audio or video they can trust,” said Assemblymember Gail Pellerin (D-Santa Cruz). “So we have to do something.”

    Newsom has signaled he will sign the bill, which would take effect immediately, in time for the November election.

    The legislation updates a California law that bars people from distributing deceptive audio or visual media that intends to harm a candidate’s reputation or deceive a voter within 60 days of an election. State lawmakers say the law needs to be strengthened during an election cycle in which people are already flooding social media with digitally altered videos and photos known as deepfakes.

    The use of deepfakes to spread misinformation has concerned lawmakers and regulators during previous election cycles. These fears increased after the release of new AI-powered tools, such as chatbots that can rapidly generate images and videos. From fake robocalls to bogus celebrity endorsement of candidates, AI-generated content is testing tech platforms and lawmakers.

    Under AB 2839, a candidate, election committee or elections official could seek a court order to get deepfakes pulled down. They could also sue the person who distributed or republished the deceptive material for damages.

    The legislation also applies to deceptive media posted 60 days after the election, including content that falsely portrays a voting machine, ballot, voting site or other election-related property in a way that is likely to undermine the confidence in the outcome of elections.

    It doesn’t apply to satire or parody that’s labeled as such, or to broadcast stations if they inform viewers that what is depicted doesn’t accurately represent a speech or event.

    Tech industry groups oppose AB 2839, along with other bills that target online platforms for not properly moderating deceptive election content or labeling AI-generated content.

    “It will result in the chilling and blocking of constitutionally protected free speech,” said Carl Szabo, vice president and general counsel for NetChoice. The group’s members include Google, X and Snap as well as Facebook’s parent company, Meta, and other tech giants.

    Online platforms have their own rules about manipulated media and political ads, but their policies can differ.

    Unlike Meta and X, TikTok doesn’t allow political ads and says it may remove even labeled AI-generated content if it depicts a public figure such as a celebrity “when used for political or commercial endorsements.” Truth Social, a platform created by Trump, doesn’t address manipulated media in its rules about what’s not allowed on its platform.

    Federal and state regulators are already cracking down on AI-generated content.

    The Federal Communications Commission in May proposed a $6-million fine against Steve Kramer, a Democratic political consultant behind a robocall that used AI to impersonate President Biden’s voice. The fake call discouraged participation in New Hampshire’s Democratic presidential primary in January. Kramer, who told NBC News he planned the call to bring attention to the dangers of AI in politics, also faces criminal charges of felony voter suppression and misdemeanor impersonation of a candidate.

    Szabo said current laws are enough to address concerns about election deepfakes. NetChoice has sued various states to stop some laws aimed at protecting children on social media, alleging they violate free speech protections under the 1st Amendment.

    “Just creating a new law doesn’t do anything to stop the bad behavior, you actually need to enforce laws,” Szabo said.

    More than two dozen states, including Washington, Arizona and Oregon, have enacted, passed or are working on legislation to regulate deepfakes, according to the consumer advocacy nonprofit Public Citizen.

    In 2019, California instituted a law aimed at combating manipulated media after a video that made it appear as if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was drunk went viral on social media. Enforcing that law has been a challenge.

    “We did have to water it down,” said Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park), who authored the bill. “It attracted a lot of attention to the potential risks of this technology, but I was worried that it really, at the end of the day, didn’t do a lot.”

    Rather than take legal action, said Danielle Citron, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, political candidates might choose to debunk a deepfake or even ignore it to limit its spread. By the time they could go through the court system, the content might already have gone viral.

    “These laws are important because of the message they send. They teach us something,” she said, adding that they inform people who share deepfakes that there are costs.

    This year, lawmakers worked with the California Initiative for Technology and Democracy, a project of the nonprofit California Common Cause, on several bills to address political deepfakes.

    Some target online platforms that have been shielded under federal law from being held liable for content posted by users.

    Berman introduced a bill that requires an online platform with at least 1 million California users to remove or label certain deceptive election-related content within 120 days of an election. The platforms would have to take action no later than 72 hours after a user reports the post. Under AB 2655, which passed the Legislature Wednesday, the platforms would also need procedures for identifying, removing and labeling fake content. It also doesn’t apply to parody or satire or news outlets that meet certain requirements.

    Another bill, co-authored by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland), requires online platforms to label AI-generated content. While NetChoice and TechNet, another industry group, oppose the bill, ChatGPT maker OpenAI is supporting AB 3211, Reuters reported.

    The two bills, though, wouldn’t take effect until after the election, underscoring the challenges with passing new laws as technology advances rapidly.

    “Part of my hope with introducing the bill is the attention that it creates, and hopefully the pressure that it puts on the social media platforms to behave right now,” Berman said.

    [ad_2]

    Queenie Wong

    Source link

  • Opinion: What’s more environmentally irresponsible than a thirsty L.A. lawn? A fake plastic one

    Opinion: What’s more environmentally irresponsible than a thirsty L.A. lawn? A fake plastic one

    [ad_1]

    Let’s start with some common sense: Covering the Earth with plastic carpet is a terrible idea. And yet we continue to cover an ever-growing swath of our public and private open spaces with artificial turf in a way that will surely leave future generations scratching their heads in confusion.

    It’s time to embrace healthier, cheaper and more environmentally responsible alternatives, and Los Angeles can help lead the way.

    The artificial turf industry has had a great deal of success convincing millions of people that its short-lived, nonrecyclable, fossil-fuel-derived product is somehow good for the environment. Were there a greenwashing hall of fame, this would be in it.

    In fact, it’s clear that artificial turf is bad for our ecosystems as well as our health.

    Artificial turf exacerbates the effects of climate change. On a 90-degree Los Angeles day, the temperature of artificial turf can reach 150 degrees or higher — hot enough to burn skin. And artificial turf is disproportionately installed to replace private lawns and public landscaping in economically disadvantaged communities that already face the greatest consequences of the urban heat-island effect, in which hard surfaces raise local temperatures.

    Artificial turf consists of single-use plastics made from crude oil or methane. The extraction, refining and processing of these petrochemicals, along with the transporting and eventual removal of artificial turf, come with a significant carbon footprint.

    Artificial turf is full of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, known as “forever chemicals” because they accumulate in the environment and living tissue. The Synthetic Turf Council has noted manufacturers’ efforts to ensure that their products “contain no intentionally-added PFAS constituents.” So what? Tobacco companies don’t intentionally add carcinogens to cigarettes; they’re built into the product. PFAS have been linked to serious health effects, and while artificial turf is by no means the only source of them, it is one we can avoid.

    Because artificial turf is a complex product made of multiple types of plastic, it will never be recycled. After its relatively short lifespan of about eight to 15 years, artificial turf ends up in indefinite storage, landfills and incinerators, creating a whole host of additional pollution problems.

    Industry reps have seduced school boards and municipalities with promises that artificial turf fields can be used 24/7 and become a source of income as third parties line up to rent them. In reality, well-maintained, natural grass fields are more than sufficient for the limited number of hours in a day when people are available to participate in sports.

    Studies show the maintenance costs of artificial turf often exceed those of natural grass. Naturally occurring organisms in soil break down much of what ends up on a grass field, including all kinds of human and animal bodily fluids. When the field is a plastic carpet, those systems can’t work, necessitating regular cleaning with a cleansing agent and a substantial amount of water. The infill component that cushions the turf must be combed, cleaned and replaced regularly as well. As the field ages, this work only increases.

    The turf industry counters that grass fields result in the use of costly fertilizers and pesticides, which also become runoff pollution. That is a reasonable concern, but it can be addressed with environmentally responsible pest management and soil amendments. The continuing implementation of statewide food and green waste collection requirements will produce much more compost to cost-effectively maintain natural playing surfaces.

    Remarkably, artificial turf doesn’t even save water compared with grass. Industry marketing materials claim that an artificial field can save millions of gallons of water a year and that homeowners who use the product to replace a conventional lawn can reduce their water use by more than half. But artificial turf must be regularly cleaned with water, and in warm climates such as Los Angeles’, artificial fields get so hot that schools must water them down before children play on them.

    Industry water reduction promises generally compare artificial turf with the thirstiest sod grasses. But far more drought-tolerant varieties of natural turf grass are available. Residential lawns are indeed a tremendously wasteful use of water, but native plants are a far better solution than artificial turf — and you get butterflies as a bonus.

    Even if artificial turf is never watered for cleaning or cooling, it contributes to losses of fresh water that natural surfaces would capture. Los Angeles in particular needs plants and natural surfaces that absorb as much of our precious rain as possible to recharge our groundwater and mitigate flooding. Impervious sheets of plastic cannot provide this service.

    The Los Angeles City Council is considering requiring municipal departments to report on the consequences of artificial turf use, which is a good first step. From 2015 until last year, California law considered artificial turf a form of drought-tolerant landscaping that cities and counties could not prohibit. Thanks to a change in the law that excluded artificial turf from that category, Los Angeles has an opportunity to set a precedent by banning new installations of this destructive material.

    Any truthful assessment of the financial, environmental and health consequences of artificial turf should lead governments to phase it out. We need to get over the antiquated notion that we can manufacture a better version of nature.

    Charles Miller is the chair of the Los Angeles chapter of the Climate Reality Project and its Biodiversity Committee.

    [ad_2]

    Charles Miller

    Source link

  • Judges put new California law barring guns in many public places on hold again

    Judges put new California law barring guns in many public places on hold again

    [ad_1]

    A new California law barring licensed gun holders from carrying their firearms in many public places has once again been blocked — meaning it cannot be enforced — as legal challenges proceed in federal court.

    The law bars concealed-carry permit holders and those with open-carry permits in more rural parts of the state from carrying their firearms into spaces that California lawmakers deemed “sensitive.”

    The prohibited places include anywhere that sells and serves liquor; on public transportation and in many parking lots; at public gatherings, special events, parks, playgrounds, stadiums, arenas, casinos, medical facilities, religious and financial institutions; and in any other private commercial spaces where the owners have not explicitly posted a sign allowing guns.

    Challengers to the law argue the list is so long that it essentially precludes them from leaving their homes with their weapons and makes their permits worthless — and diminishes their ability to defend themselves in public, a right that they say is guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment. (People without permits, who are not party to the lawsuit, generally cannot carry firearms anywhere in public in California.)

    A federal district judge halted major portions of the law from taking effect last month, calling it “repugnant” and unconstitutional. An administrative panel of judges in the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals then stayed that judge’s ruling on Dec. 30, letting the law, known as Senate Bill 2, take effect as planned on Jan. 1.

    However, on Saturday, another 9th Circuit appellate panel issued its own order reversing the administrative panel and restoring the lower court’s judgment while the proceedings continue.

    The latest order, issued by a court clerk without the names of the judges listed, puts the state law on ice once more as the case proceeds. The 9th Circuit appellate panel will be considering the state’s appeal, including during arguments in April.

    A spokesperson in the office of Gov. Gavin Newsom called the latest decision “dangerous” in a statement, saying it “puts the lives of Californians on the line.”

    “We won’t stop working to defend our decades of progress on gun safety in our state,” the spokesperson said.

    Chuck Michel, an attorney for the gun holders suing the state over the law, applauded the ruling and said it preserves “the status quo” for responsible gun owners.

    “Had this new law taken effect, it would reverse decades of allowing vetted and licensed [concealed-carry weapon] holders (but not the general public) to carry in places where the need for self-defense can be most acute,” Michel wrote in a statement.

    “So the politicians’ ploy to get around the 2nd Amendment has been stopped for now,” he said. “Now we will focus on stopping it for good.”

    The legal battle is one of many playing out in courts across the country in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. vs. Bruen in 2022.

    In Bruen, the high court held that strict limits on concealed-carry permits in states such as New York and California amounted to unconstitutional restraints on people’s 2nd Amendment right to self-defense.

    The court also held that gun laws that aren’t deeply rooted in American history, or analogous to some historical law, are generally unconstitutional. Some gun laws — like those that have traditionally barred guns in sensitive places such as schools and courtrooms — remained valid, the court noted.

    Last year, California lawmakers passed SB 2 in response to the Bruen decision and several mass shootings, including in Half Moon Bay and Monterey Park. Lawmakers argued that the bill, sponsored by state Sen. Anthony Portantino (D-Burbank), was permissible under the Bruen decision because it simply extended the list of places deemed sensitive under California law.

    Gun holders sued in response, and won a victory on Dec. 20 when U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney issued an injunction.

    Carney, an appointee of President George W. Bush, wrote that SB 2’s “coverage is sweeping, repugnant to the Second Amendment, and openly defiant of the Supreme Court.” He said SB 2 clearly clashed with the Bruen decision, and an injunction blocking it was warranted because the gun holders were likely to win their case against the state and would suffer “irreparable harm” if they weren’t allowed to carry their firearms in the meantime.

    California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office appealed and asked for a stay to allow the state’s law to go into effect while the court case continued. An administrative panel of the 9th Circuit granted that stay, but now, with Saturday’s order, the law is once more blocked while the case proceeds.

    [ad_2]

    Kevin Rector

    Source link

  • Legalizing marijuana in Ohio: Debate of impact on criminal justice reform – Medical Marijuana Program Connection

    Legalizing marijuana in Ohio: Debate of impact on criminal justice reform – Medical Marijuana Program Connection

    [ad_1]

    The hot-button issue of marijuana legalization is front and center in Ohio again and voters will ultimately decide whether or not it happens on Nov. 7.

    A “No” vote opposes legalizing recreational marijuana for adult use in Ohio. A “Yes” vote supports legalizing recreational marijuana for adults 21 years old and older.

    Issue 2 would regulate recreational marijuana use, including: cultivation, processing, sale, purchase, possession and home growth.

    The plan also would allow for expungement of past convictions for nonviolent, low-level offenses of possession and cultivation of marijuana.

    “Even a small interaction with law enforcement, a small possession of marijuana case can be a black mark on someone’s criminal record for the rest of their lives,” said Tom Haren, spokesperson for the Coalition to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol.

    Opponents of Issue 2 said legalizing marijuana would not have a significant impact on those charged with low-level marijuana crimes.

    “Legalizing marijuana has nothing to do with social justice,” Smart Approaches to Marijuana Executive VP Luke Niforatos said. “We don’t think anyone who made a poor decision when they were 14 should never be able to get a job or vote, but those are things that should be taken care of through true criminal justice reform.”

    Fresh Start Worship Center Senior Pastor Niki Hampton said she is not convinced that the passage of Issue 2 would be beneficial for the community.

    “I am not convinced that it…

    Original Author Link click here to read complete story..

    [ad_2]

    MMP News Author

    Source link