ReportWire

Tag: preliminary injunction

  • Judge says she won’t halt Minnesota immigration enforcement surge as a lawsuit proceeds

    [ad_1]

    Judge says she won’t halt Minnesota immigration enforcement surge as a lawsuit proceeds

    The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope

    This 13 page document lays out DHS policy for use of force. Now these rules apply to Customs and Border Protection, ICE, and Secret Service and make it clear what protocols agents should follow before any use of force is applied. And while it’s easy to look back and replay video over and over after the fact, experts we talked to told us agents need to rely on these policies and training, especially in critical moments. Unfortunately, It, it’s for me as *** field office director, this all of this is very um upsetting. Darius Reeves, *** former ICE field office director, spent nearly 20 years with ICE and Homeland Security, *** time when he says their operations were not drawing public attention. No one had any idea about ICE. We were very professional, we were very clean, and this is. There are far too many US citizens being involved. What troubles Reeves now isn’t just the outcome of recent encounters, but whether ICE and Border Patrol are following their own use of force and de-escalation policies. When is use of force an option? If it’s an immediate Imminent threat. The National Investigative Unit reviewed the Department of Homeland Security’s use of force policy alongside video from the two recent killings of Alex Preddy and Renee Good and talked with experts including Reeves. DHS policy is clear officers should attempt de-escalation, issue verbal commands, reassess when resistance stops, and discontinue force once an incident is under control. Video from the encounter involving 30 seven-year-old Alex Preddy shows in the minute before the shooting, Preddy is recording from *** distance. Agents push *** woman who grabs onto Preddy. He’s then pushed. An agent pushes another woman near Preddy, who then steps in with an open hand up, then turns away from the agent as he’s sprayed with *** chemical. They continually sprayed him even when his back was to them, and then everybody piles on. Based on the video we’ve seen, in your opinion. Was deadly force used correctly on Alex Peretti? Absolutely not. The second case involving Renee Good raises *** different policy question. DHS rules place strict limits on the use of deadly force in and around vehicles. Mark Brown used to train ICE agents and explains the strict rules. The general practice was that They went away from shooting in the moving vehicles. Reeves and Brown add that incidents need to be carefully examined afterward to prevent future violations. Are we debriefing every day after, you know, to see, OK, what are we doing for our own accountability? This is *** major travesty, um. And you, you’re going to have to stick to the policy. The DHS policy states that every agent must be trained in use of force and de-escalation policies at least once *** year, and every 2 years they must conduct less than lethal force training. The policy we reviewed was last updated in 2023. Reporting in Washington, I’m national investigative correspondent John Cardinelli.

    Judge says she won’t halt Minnesota immigration enforcement surge as a lawsuit proceeds

    The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope

    Updated: 10:27 AM PST Jan 31, 2026

    Editorial Standards ⓘ

    A federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.Video above: Examining DHS use-of-force policiesA federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.Judge Katherine M. Menendez on Saturday denied a preliminary injunction sought in a lawsuit filed this month by state Attorney General Keith Ellison and the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul.It argued that the Department of Homeland Security is violating constitutional protections. The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope. Lawyers with the U.S. Department of Justice have called the lawsuit “legally frivolous.”The ruling on the injunction focused on the argument by Minnesota officials that the federal government is violating the Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which limits the federal government’s powers to infringe on the sovereignty of states. In her ruling, the judge relied heavily on whether that argument was likely to ultimately succeed in court.The federal government argued that the surge, dubbed Operation Metro Surge, is necessary in its effort to take criminal immigrants off the streets and because federal efforts have been hindered by state and local “sanctuary laws and policies.” State and local officials argued that the surge is retaliation after the federal government’s initial attempts to withhold federal funding to try to force immigration cooperation failed.”Because there is evidence supporting both sides’ arguments as to motivation and the relative merits of each side’s competing positions are unclear, the Court is reluctant to find that the likelihood-of-success factor weighs sufficiently in favor of granting a preliminary injunction,” the judge said in the ruling.U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi took to social media Saturday to laud the ruling, calling it “another HUGE” legal win for the Justice Department on X.Federal officers have fatally shot two people on the streets of Minneapolis: Renee Good on Jan. 7 and Alex Pretti on Jan. 24.

    MINNEAPOLIS (AP) —

    A federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.

    Video above: Examining DHS use-of-force policies

    A federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.

    Judge Katherine M. Menendez on Saturday denied a preliminary injunction sought in a lawsuit filed this month by state Attorney General Keith Ellison and the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul.

    It argued that the Department of Homeland Security is violating constitutional protections. The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope. Lawyers with the U.S. Department of Justice have called the lawsuit “legally frivolous.”

    The ruling on the injunction focused on the argument by Minnesota officials that the federal government is violating the Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which limits the federal government’s powers to infringe on the sovereignty of states. In her ruling, the judge relied heavily on whether that argument was likely to ultimately succeed in court.

    The federal government argued that the surge, dubbed Operation Metro Surge, is necessary in its effort to take criminal immigrants off the streets and because federal efforts have been hindered by state and local “sanctuary laws and policies.” State and local officials argued that the surge is retaliation after the federal government’s initial attempts to withhold federal funding to try to force immigration cooperation failed.

    “Because there is evidence supporting both sides’ arguments as to motivation and the relative merits of each side’s competing positions are unclear, the Court is reluctant to find that the likelihood-of-success factor weighs sufficiently in favor of granting a preliminary injunction,” the judge said in the ruling.

    U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi took to social media Saturday to laud the ruling, calling it “another HUGE” legal win for the Justice Department on X.

    Federal officers have fatally shot two people on the streets of Minneapolis: Renee Good on Jan. 7 and Alex Pretti on Jan. 24.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge says she won’t halt Minnesota immigration enforcement surge as a lawsuit proceeds

    [ad_1]

    Judge says she won’t halt Minnesota immigration enforcement surge as a lawsuit proceeds

    The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope

    This 13 page document lays out DHS policy for use of force. Now these rules apply to Customs and Border Protection, ICE, and Secret Service and make it clear what protocols agents should follow before any use of force is applied. And while it’s easy to look back and replay video over and over after the fact, experts we talked to told us agents need to rely on these policies and training, especially in critical moments. Unfortunately, It, it’s for me as *** field office director, this all of this is very um upsetting. Darius Reeves, *** former ICE field office director, spent nearly 20 years with ICE and Homeland Security, *** time when he says their operations were not drawing public attention. No one had any idea about ICE. We were very professional, we were very clean, and this is. There are far too many US citizens being involved. What troubles Reeves now isn’t just the outcome of recent encounters, but whether ICE and Border Patrol are following their own use of force and de-escalation policies. When is use of force an option? If it’s an immediate Imminent threat. The National Investigative Unit reviewed the Department of Homeland Security’s use of force policy alongside video from the two recent killings of Alex Preddy and Renee Good and talked with experts including Reeves. DHS policy is clear officers should attempt de-escalation, issue verbal commands, reassess when resistance stops, and discontinue force once an incident is under control. Video from the encounter involving 30 seven-year-old Alex Preddy shows in the minute before the shooting, Preddy is recording from *** distance. Agents push *** woman who grabs onto Preddy. He’s then pushed. An agent pushes another woman near Preddy, who then steps in with an open hand up, then turns away from the agent as he’s sprayed with *** chemical. They continually sprayed him even when his back was to them, and then everybody piles on. Based on the video we’ve seen, in your opinion. Was deadly force used correctly on Alex Peretti? Absolutely not. The second case involving Renee Good raises *** different policy question. DHS rules place strict limits on the use of deadly force in and around vehicles. Mark Brown used to train ICE agents and explains the strict rules. The general practice was that They went away from shooting in the moving vehicles. Reeves and Brown add that incidents need to be carefully examined afterward to prevent future violations. Are we debriefing every day after, you know, to see, OK, what are we doing for our own accountability? This is *** major travesty, um. And you, you’re going to have to stick to the policy. The DHS policy states that every agent must be trained in use of force and de-escalation policies at least once *** year, and every 2 years they must conduct less than lethal force training. The policy we reviewed was last updated in 2023. Reporting in Washington, I’m national investigative correspondent John Cardinelli.

    Judge says she won’t halt Minnesota immigration enforcement surge as a lawsuit proceeds

    The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope

    Updated: 1:27 PM EST Jan 31, 2026

    Editorial Standards ⓘ

    A federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.Video above: Examining DHS use-of-force policiesA federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.Judge Katherine M. Menendez on Saturday denied a preliminary injunction sought in a lawsuit filed this month by state Attorney General Keith Ellison and the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul.It argued that the Department of Homeland Security is violating constitutional protections. The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope. Lawyers with the U.S. Department of Justice have called the lawsuit “legally frivolous.”The ruling on the injunction focused on the argument by Minnesota officials that the federal government is violating the Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which limits the federal government’s powers to infringe on the sovereignty of states. In her ruling, the judge relied heavily on whether that argument was likely to ultimately succeed in court.The federal government argued that the surge, dubbed Operation Metro Surge, is necessary in its effort to take criminal immigrants off the streets and because federal efforts have been hindered by state and local “sanctuary laws and policies.” State and local officials argued that the surge is retaliation after the federal government’s initial attempts to withhold federal funding to try to force immigration cooperation failed.”Because there is evidence supporting both sides’ arguments as to motivation and the relative merits of each side’s competing positions are unclear, the Court is reluctant to find that the likelihood-of-success factor weighs sufficiently in favor of granting a preliminary injunction,” the judge said in the ruling.U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi took to social media Saturday to laud the ruling, calling it “another HUGE” legal win for the Justice Department on X.Federal officers have fatally shot two people on the streets of Minneapolis: Renee Good on Jan. 7 and Alex Pretti on Jan. 24.

    MINNEAPOLIS (AP) —

    A federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.

    Video above: Examining DHS use-of-force policies

    A federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.

    Judge Katherine M. Menendez on Saturday denied a preliminary injunction sought in a lawsuit filed this month by state Attorney General Keith Ellison and the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul.

    It argued that the Department of Homeland Security is violating constitutional protections. The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope. Lawyers with the U.S. Department of Justice have called the lawsuit “legally frivolous.”

    The ruling on the injunction focused on the argument by Minnesota officials that the federal government is violating the Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which limits the federal government’s powers to infringe on the sovereignty of states. In her ruling, the judge relied heavily on whether that argument was likely to ultimately succeed in court.

    The federal government argued that the surge, dubbed Operation Metro Surge, is necessary in its effort to take criminal immigrants off the streets and because federal efforts have been hindered by state and local “sanctuary laws and policies.” State and local officials argued that the surge is retaliation after the federal government’s initial attempts to withhold federal funding to try to force immigration cooperation failed.

    “Because there is evidence supporting both sides’ arguments as to motivation and the relative merits of each side’s competing positions are unclear, the Court is reluctant to find that the likelihood-of-success factor weighs sufficiently in favor of granting a preliminary injunction,” the judge said in the ruling.

    U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi took to social media Saturday to laud the ruling, calling it “another HUGE” legal win for the Justice Department on X.

    Federal officers have fatally shot two people on the streets of Minneapolis: Renee Good on Jan. 7 and Alex Pretti on Jan. 24.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Appeals court pauses order restricting use of force by immigration agents in Chicago-area crackdown

    [ad_1]

    A federal appeals court on Wednesday temporarily halted an order restricting the use of force by federal immigration agents in the Chicago area, calling it “overbroad” and “too prescriptive.”Related video above: New tension in Chicago after federal agents chased and then crashed into a vehicleBut the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also cautioned against “overreading” its stay and said a quick appeal process could lead to a “more tailored and appropriate” order.Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis issued a preliminary injunction in response to a lawsuit filed by news outlets and protesters who claimed federal officers used excessive force during an immigration crackdown that has netted more than 3,000 arrests since September across the nation’s third-largest city and its many suburbs.Government attorneys had argued that the order restricted the enforcement of the nation’s laws and could “subvert” the constitutional structure.In issuing a stay Wednesday, the three-judge panel said the government’s arguments were likely to prevail in court.”The preliminary injunction entered by the district court is overbroad,” the two-page ruling said. “In no uncertain terms, the district court’s order enjoins an expansive range of defendants, including the President of the United States, the entire Departments of Homeland Security and Justice, and anyone acting in concert with them.”It added that the order was “too prescriptive” as it specified the types of riot control weapons and other devices in a way that “resembles a federal regulation.”Among other things, Ellis’ order restricted agents from using physical force and chemical agents like tear gas and pepper balls, unless necessary or to prevent an “an immediate threat.” She said the current practices violated the constitutional rights of journalists and protesters.During a lengthy court hearing this month, witnesses gave emotional testimony when describing experiencing tear gas, being shot in the head with pepper balls while praying, and having guns pointed at them.Ellis determined that Trump administration witnesses were “simply not credible,” including Gregory Bovino, a Border Patrol commander who led the Chicago area operation before moving on to to North Carolina in recent days.Attorneys for the plaintiffs and the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately return messages seeking comment on Wednesday’s stay.Bovino, the head of a Border Patrol sector in El Centro, California, has repeatedly defended agents’ use of force. He oversaw about 230 agents from U.S. Customs and Border Protection in the Chicago area starting in September. After North Carolina, federal border agents are expected to be deployed to New Orleans.The immigration operation in the Chicago area has triggered multiple lawsuits, including allegations about inhumane conditions at a federal immigration center. The legal complaint prompted a federal judge and attorneys to visit the longtime U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility outside Chicago last week.

    CHICAGO —

    A federal appeals court on Wednesday temporarily halted an order restricting the use of force by federal immigration agents in the Chicago area, calling it “overbroad” and “too prescriptive.”

    Related video above: New tension in Chicago after federal agents chased and then crashed into a vehicle

    But the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also cautioned against “overreading” its stay and said a quick appeal process could lead to a “more tailored and appropriate” order.

    Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis issued a preliminary injunction in response to a lawsuit filed by news outlets and protesters who claimed federal officers used excessive force during an immigration crackdown that has netted more than 3,000 arrests since September across the nation’s third-largest city and its many suburbs.

    Government attorneys had argued that the order restricted the enforcement of the nation’s laws and could “subvert” the constitutional structure.

    In issuing a stay Wednesday, the three-judge panel said the government’s arguments were likely to prevail in court.

    “The preliminary injunction entered by the district court is overbroad,” the two-page ruling said. “In no uncertain terms, the district court’s order enjoins an expansive range of defendants, including the President of the United States, the entire Departments of Homeland Security and Justice, and anyone acting in concert with them.”

    It added that the order was “too prescriptive” as it specified the types of riot control weapons and other devices in a way that “resembles a federal regulation.”

    Among other things, Ellis’ order restricted agents from using physical force and chemical agents like tear gas and pepper balls, unless necessary or to prevent an “an immediate threat.” She said the current practices violated the constitutional rights of journalists and protesters.

    During a lengthy court hearing this month, witnesses gave emotional testimony when describing experiencing tear gas, being shot in the head with pepper balls while praying, and having guns pointed at them.

    Ellis determined that Trump administration witnesses were “simply not credible,” including Gregory Bovino, a Border Patrol commander who led the Chicago area operation before moving on to to North Carolina in recent days.

    Attorneys for the plaintiffs and the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately return messages seeking comment on Wednesday’s stay.

    Bovino, the head of a Border Patrol sector in El Centro, California, has repeatedly defended agents’ use of force. He oversaw about 230 agents from U.S. Customs and Border Protection in the Chicago area starting in September. After North Carolina, federal border agents are expected to be deployed to New Orleans.

    The immigration operation in the Chicago area has triggered multiple lawsuits, including allegations about inhumane conditions at a federal immigration center. The legal complaint prompted a federal judge and attorneys to visit the longtime U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility outside Chicago last week.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • City Council committee advances measure to limit LAPD’s less-lethal weapons at protests

    [ad_1]

    The Los Angeles City Council will consider an ordinance that would prevent the LAPD from using crowd control weapons against peaceful protesters and journalists.

    Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez, who represents District 13, is pushing for regulations that would prohibit the Los Angeles Police Department from using “kinetic energy projectiles” or “chemical agents” unless officers are threatened with physical violence.

    The Public Safety Committee unanimously approved the proposal and forwarded a vote with all council members on Wednesday. The items would be considered by the council in November or December, said Nick Barnes-Batista, a communications director for District 13.

    The ordinance would also require officers to give clear, audible warnings about safe exit routes during “kettling,” when crowds are pushed into designated areas by police.

    After the first iteration of the “No Kings” protest over the summer that saw multiple journalists shot by nonlethal rounds, tear-gassed and detained, news organizations sued the city and Police Department, arguing officers had engaged in “continuing abuse” of members of the media.

    U.S. District Judge Hernan D. Vera granted a temporary restraining order that restricted LAPD officers from using rubber projectiles, chemical irritants and flash bangs against journalists.

    Under the court order, officers are allowed to use those weapons “only when the officer reasonably believes that a suspect is violently resisting arrest or poses an immediate threat of violence or physical harm.”

    LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell called the definition of journalist “ambiguous” in a news release Monday, raising concerns that the preliminary injunction could prevent the LAPD from addressing “people intent on unlawful and violent behavior.”

    “The risk of harm to everyone involved increases substantially,” McDonnell wrote. “LAPD must declare an unlawful assembly, and issue dispersal orders, to ensure the safety of the public and restore order.”

    The L.A. Press Club, plaintiffs in the lawsuit that led to the injunction, has alleged journalists were detained and assaulted by officers during an immigration protest in August. The Press Club is also involved in a similar lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

    “This case is about LAPD, but if necessary, we are ready to take similar action to address misconduct toward journalists by other agencies,” the organization wrote in a news release from June.

    Vera ruled in September that “any duly authorized representative of any news service, online news service, newspaper, or radio or television station or network” would be classified as a journalist and therefore protected under the court’s orders. Journalists who are impeding or physically interfering with law enforcement are not subject to the protections.

    Any ordinance passed by the City Council would apply to the LAPD but not other agencies that could be responding to protests that turn chaotic, such as the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department or California Highway Patrol, thereby complicating operational procedure.

    Barnes-Batista, the District 13 spokesman, said the City Council would need to discuss how to craft the rules.

    “There are definitely unanswered questions about [how] the city wouldn’t want the city to be liable for other agencies not following policy,” he said. “So that will have to be worked out.”

    Last month, the City Council, led by Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, voted unanimously to deny a request by the city attorney, Hydee Feldstein Soto, to push for Vera’s injunction to be lifted.

    “Journalism is under attack in this country — from the Trump Administration’s revocation of press access to the Pentagon to corporate consolidation of local newsrooms,” Hernandez said. “The answer cannot be for Los Angeles to join that assault by undermining court-ordered protections for journalists.”

    [ad_2]

    Christopher Buchanan

    Source link

  • ‘Everyone is doing well’: President Trump praises economy amid layoffs, potential SNAP crisis

    [ad_1]

    ‘Everyone is doing well’: President Trump praises economy amid layoffs, potential SNAP crisis

    President Trump promotes economic prosperity during his visit to Japan, while layoffs and a federal shutdown threaten millions back in the U.S.

    Updated: 3:03 PM PDT Oct 28, 2025

    Editorial Standards ⓘ


    White House Correspondent

    President Donald Trump is promoting Japanese companies investing $550 billion in the United States while visiting the East Asian country. The president said the funds would be “at my direction” as part of a trade framework secured with Japan. The president also boasted about the U.S. economy, despite contrasting economic challenges.”Well, everyone in our country is now doing well. My first term, we built the greatest economy in the history of the world. We had an economy like nobody has seen before now. We’re doing it again, but this time, actually, it’s going to be much bigger, much stronger,” Trump said.The president highlighted the stock market reaching all-time highs, but economists point to other indicators that tell a different story. Amazon announced it is cutting 14,000 jobs, UPS is eliminating roughly 48,000 positions and closing more than 90 buildings as part of a turnaround plan, and Target, Ford, and GM have also announced layoffs amid slowing demand. Additionally, the federal government shutdown threatens food aid benefits for more than 40 million Americans as soon as Nov. 1, and September’s CPI data showed prices are rising again just as the Federal Reserve has cut interest rates to support the economy.”I don’t really understand the optimism to be perfectly honest, and I’m a very optimistic, very little of a ‘doomer’ person. We’ve had seven months in a row of contractions and manufacturing output. The labor market cooled to such an extent that it forced the Fed to cut rates in September,” said Jai Kedia from the Cato Institute.President Trump is preparing to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping amid the ongoing U.S.–China trade war. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the two countries have reached a “very successful framework” ahead of their summit, covering tariffs, rare-earth exports and large U.S. agricultural purchases.Meanwhile, 26 states and Washington, D.C., are suing the USDA, arguing the agency has contingency funds that could be used to maintain SNAP benefits during the shutdown. In a memo, the USDA stated that those funds can only be used for a natural disaster or other emergency, not to operate during a shutdown, and placed the blame on Senate Democrats, saying, “We are approaching an inflection point for Senate Democrats. Continue to hold out for the Far-Left wing of the party or reopen the government so mothers, babies, and the most vulnerable among us can receive timely WIC and SNAP allotments.” The states argue the law requires the USDA to issue benefits as long as money is available.It comes after another failed vote occurred today in the Senate. A federal judge in San Francisco has issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration from firing federal workers during the government shutdown. This move comes as a lawsuit challenges recent job cuts in education, health, and other areas.For more coverage from the Washington News Bureau here:

    WASHINGTON —

    President Donald Trump is promoting Japanese companies investing $550 billion in the United States while visiting the East Asian country. The president said the funds would be “at my direction” as part of a trade framework secured with Japan.

    The president also boasted about the U.S. economy, despite contrasting economic challenges.

    “Well, everyone in our country is now doing well. My first term, we built the greatest economy in the history of the world. We had an economy like nobody has seen before now. We’re doing it again, but this time, actually, it’s going to be much bigger, much stronger,” Trump said.

    The president highlighted the stock market reaching all-time highs, but economists point to other indicators that tell a different story.

    Amazon announced it is cutting 14,000 jobs, UPS is eliminating roughly 48,000 positions and closing more than 90 buildings as part of a turnaround plan, and Target, Ford, and GM have also announced layoffs amid slowing demand.

    Additionally, the federal government shutdown threatens food aid benefits for more than 40 million Americans as soon as Nov. 1, and September’s CPI data showed prices are rising again just as the Federal Reserve has cut interest rates to support the economy.

    “I don’t really understand the optimism to be perfectly honest, and I’m a very optimistic, very little of a ‘doomer’ person. We’ve had seven months in a row of contractions and manufacturing output. The labor market cooled to such an extent that it forced the Fed to cut rates in September,” said Jai Kedia from the Cato Institute.

    President Trump is preparing to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping amid the ongoing U.S.–China trade war. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the two countries have reached a “very successful framework” ahead of their summit, covering tariffs, rare-earth exports and large U.S. agricultural purchases.

    Meanwhile, 26 states and Washington, D.C., are suing the USDA, arguing the agency has contingency funds that could be used to maintain SNAP benefits during the shutdown.

    In a memo, the USDA stated that those funds can only be used for a natural disaster or other emergency, not to operate during a shutdown, and placed the blame on Senate Democrats, saying, “We are approaching an inflection point for Senate Democrats. Continue to hold out for the Far-Left wing of the party or reopen the government so mothers, babies, and the most vulnerable among us can receive timely WIC and SNAP allotments.”

    The states argue the law requires the USDA to issue benefits as long as money is available.

    It comes after another failed vote occurred today in the Senate. A federal judge in San Francisco has issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration from firing federal workers during the government shutdown. This move comes as a lawsuit challenges recent job cuts in education, health, and other areas.

    For more coverage from the Washington News Bureau here:

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Concordia University told to reinstate women’s teams while Title IX lawsuit plays out

    [ad_1]

    Concordia University’s attempt to bolster athletics with one hand while slashing four sports with the other was hampered by a federal judge who granted a preliminary injunction preventing the Division II university from dropping the women’s swimming and tennis programs.

    Seven members of the women’s swimming and diving team and two women’s tennis players allege in a sex discrimination class action lawsuit filed in August that by dropping the programs, the Irvine school is violating Title IX.

    Judge Fred W. Slaughter agreed, ordering that the injunction remain in place for the duration of the lawsuit. Concordia must immediately reinstate the women’s teams and provide them “with funding, staffing, and all other benefits commensurate with their status as varsity intercollegiate teams,” Slaughter wrote in a 19-page ruling.

    Concordia announced the cuts of the men’s and women’s swimming and tennis teams in May, stating the school had “determined that the current model is not sustainable in the midst of increasing operational costs, facility limitations, and significant changes in the collegiate athletics landscape.”

    But the cuts came at a time when Concordia was plowing $25.5 million into upgrading the university’s athletic infrastructure. A week after athletic director Crystal Rosenthal calculated the cuts would save $550,000 a year, she sent an email to unaffected athletes boasting that major improvements would be made to Concordia’s athletics infrastructure.

    Rosenthal, who is also the school’s softball coach, wrote: “We are currently in the midst of a major $17.5-million construction project that includes a new 19,000-square-foot facility featuring a state-of-the-art weight room, locker rooms, and modern training room space. This facility represents our belief in the future of our athletic programs and our student-athletes.”

    She added that more than $8 million had been earmarked for upgrades to the baseball, softball and soccer/track/lacrosse facilities — including the installation of outdoor lights.

    The lawsuit followed in August and Slaughter issued the preliminary injunction Friday. Arthur Bryant, the lawyer representing the female athletes, said that women comprised 59% of Concordia’s students but received only 51.2% of the roster spots for sports.

    “The court’s thorough, compelling decision confirms what we said from the start: CUI’s decision to eliminate the women’s swimming and diving and tennis teams was a flagrant violation of Title IX,” Bryant said in a statement. “Concordia needs to add about 100 opportunities for women to reach gender equity. It should not be eliminating any women’s teams.”

    The concurrent spending on infrastructure was particularly galling to female athletes and some alumni, according to SwimSwam. The swimming and water polo teams train off-campus and place few operational demands on the school. The swimming program had 23 men and 25 women on its rosters last season.

    Concordia, a Lutheran-affiliated school with about 1,500 undergraduates that moved from the NAIA to NCAA Division II in 2017, is one of several universities whose efforts to trim athletic programs have been thwarted by courts.

    A federal judge in Texas issued a preliminary injunction against Stephen F. Austin State in August, preventing the school from eliminating its women’s beach volleyball, bowling and golf programs. According to Sportico, at least eight other schools since 2020 have been ordered to reinstate programs after Title IX challenges: Iowa, William & Mary, UConn, Dartmouth, Clemson, East Carolina, North Carolina Pembroke and Dickinson College.

    [ad_2]

    Steve Henson

    Source link

  • Trump can’t deny funds to L.A. and 30 other ‘sanctuary’ jurisdictions, judge rules

    [ad_1]

    The Trump administration cannot deny funding to Los Angeles and 30 other cities and counties because of “sanctuary” policies that limit their cooperation with federal immigration agencies, a judge ruled late Friday.

    The judge issued a preliminary injunction that expands restrictions the court handed down in April that blocked funding cuts to 16 cities and counties, including San Francisco and Santa Clara, after federal officials classified them as “sanctuary jurisdictions.”

    U.S. District Judge William Orrick of the federal court in San Francisco ruled then that Trump’s executive order cutting funding was probably unconstitutional and violated the separation of powers doctrine.

    Friday’s order added more than a dozen more jurisdictions to the preliminary injunction, including Los Angeles, Alameda County, Berkeley, Baltimore, Boston and Chicago.

    Mayor Karen Bass’ office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    In a statement, a spokesperson for the White House said the Trump administration expected to ultimately win in its effort on appeal.

    “The government — at all levels — has the duty to protect American citizens from harm,” Abigail Jackson, a spokesperson for the White House, said in a statement. “Sanctuary cities interfere with federal immigration enforcement at the expense and safety and security of American citizens. We look forward to ultimate vindication on the issue.”

    The preliminary injunction is the latest chapter in an ongoing effort by the Trump administration to force “sanctuary cities” to assist and commit local resources to federal immigration enforcement efforts.

    Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Justice published a list of what it determined to be sanctuary jurisdictions, or local entities that have “policies, laws, or regulations that impede enforcement of federal immigration laws.”

    “Sanctuary policies impede law enforcement and put American citizens at risk by design,” Atty. Gen. Pamela Bondi said in a statement accompanying the published list.

    Several cities and counties across the country have adopted sanctuary city policies, but specifics as to what extent they’re willing — or unwilling — to do for federal immigration officials have varied.

    The policies typically do not impede federal officials from conducting immigration enforcement activities, but largely keep local jurisdictions from committing resources to the efforts.

    The policies also don’t prevent local agencies from enforcing judicial warrants, which are signed by a judge. Cooperation on “detainers” or holds on jailed suspects issued by federal agencies, along with enforcement of civil immigration matters, is typically limited by sanctuary policies.

    Federal officials in the suit have so far referred to “sanctuary” jurisdictions as local governments that don’t honor immigration detainer requests, don’t assist with administrative warrants, don’t share immigration status information, or don’t allow local police to assist in immigration enforcement operations.

    Orrick noted that the executive orders threatened to withhold all federal funding if the cities and counties in question did not adhere to the Trump administration’s requests.

    In the order, the judge referred to the executive order as a “coercive threat” and said it was unconstitutional.

    Orrick, who sits on the bench in the Northern District of California, was appointed by former President Obama.

    The Trump administration has been ratcheting up efforts to force local jurisdictions to assist in immigration enforcement. The administration has filed lawsuits against cities and counties, vastly increased street operations and immigration detentions, and deployed National Guard troops to Los Angeles as it increased immigration operations.

    The U.S. Department of Justice in June sued Los Angeles, and local officials, alleging its sanctuary city law is “illegal.”

    The suit alleged that the city was looking to “thwart the will of the American people regarding deportations” by enacting sanctuary city policies.

    [ad_2]

    Salvador Hernandez

    Source link

  • Judge grants Wonderful’s request to halt UFW effort to unionize company’s workers

    Judge grants Wonderful’s request to halt UFW effort to unionize company’s workers

    [ad_1]

    After more than a month of deliberation, a Kern County Superior Court judge has sided with Wonderful Co. and issued a preliminary injunction that will temporarily halt a contentious bargaining process between the agricultural giant and the state’s largest farmworker union.

    In a ruling issued Thursday, Judge Bernard C. Barmann said Wonderful “was likely to prevail” in its legal challenge to the state’s relatively new system for organizing farmworkers and faced irreparable harm if the United Farm Workers is allowed to unionize the company’s nursery workers before the case is decided.

    “The court finds that the public interest weighs in favor of preliminary injunctive relief given the constitutional rights at stake in this matter,” Barmann wrote in the 21-page decision. Wonderful “has met its burden that a preliminary injunction should issue until the matter may be heard fully on the merits.”

    Wonderful, the $6-billion agricultural powerhouse owned by Stewart and Lynda Resnick, sued the state Agricultural Labor Relations Board in May, challenging the constitutionality of the state’s so-called card-check system, which Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law in 2022. Under its provisions, a union can organize farmworkers by inviting them to sign authorization cards at off-site meetings, without notifying an employer, rather than voting by secret ballot at a designated polling place.

    Union organizers had pressed for the revised card-check law, contending the secret ballot process left workers fearful of retaliation from their employer.

    But Wonderful, whose portfolio includes such well-known brands as FIJI Water and POM Wonderful, alleges in its lawsuit that the law deprives employers of due process on multiple fronts. Among them: forcing a company to enter a collective bargaining agreement even if it has formally appealed the ALRB’s certification of a union vote and presented what it believes is evidence that the voting process was fraudulent.

    The temporary injunction marks the latest twist in a tumultuous dispute over the UFW’s unionization campaign at Wonderful Nurseries in Wasco, the nation’s largest grapevine nursery.

    In late February, the UFW filed a petition with the labor relations board, asserting that a majority of the 600-plus farmworkers at the nursery had signed authorization cards and asking that the UFW be certified as their union representative.

    Within days, Wonderful accused the UFW of having baited farmworkers into signing the authorization cards under the guise of helping them apply for $600 in federal relief for farmworkers who labored during the pandemic. And the company submitted nearly 150 signed declarations from nursery workers saying they had not understood that by signing the cards they were voting to unionize.

    The UFW countered that Wonderful had intimidated workers into making false statements and had brought in a labor consultant with a reputation as a union buster to manipulate their emotions in the weeks that followed.

    The ALRB acknowledged receiving the worker declarations from Wonderful; nonetheless, the regional director of the labor board moved forward three days later to certify the union’s petition. She has said in subsequent hearings that she felt she had to move quickly under the timeline laid out in the card-check law, and that at the time she did not think the statute authorized her to investigate allegations of misconduct.

    Wonderful appealed the ALRB’s certification.

    Under the provisions of the card-check law, the UFW’s efforts to bargain with the company on behalf of its nursery workers moved forward, even as Wonderful’s appeal of the certification works its way through the ALRB’s administrative hearing process. The ALRB issued a ruling last week ordering Wonderful to enter into a mandatory mediation process to establish a collective bargaining agreement.

    In its lawsuit, filed in May, Wonderful challenges the constitutionality of the card-check system on multiple fronts. Among them: that the company’s due process rights were violated when the labor board moved to certify the UFW’s petition before investigating the company’s allegations that the vote was fraudulent; and more broadly that the card-check system does not have adequate safeguards in place to ensure the veracity of the voting process.

    The company asked the judge to halt the unionization effort at its nursery, as well as the ALRB’s administrative hearing process, while the lawsuit moved forward in Kern County court.

    In a statement released Thursday evening, Rob Yraceburu, president of Wonderful Nurseries, said the company was “gratified” by the court’s decision to pause the certification process until the constitutionality of the card check law can be “fully and properly considered.”

    “In addition,” Yraceburu said, “farmworkers had been wrongly barred from objecting to a union being forced on them, and this ruling states that Wonderful indeed has the standing to fight to ensure those constitutional rights of farmworkers, including their due process and First Amendment rights, are not violated.”

    UFW spokesperson Elizabeth Strater countered that the ruling “ignores 89 years of labor law precedent” and indicated the decision to grant the injunction would be appealed.

    “There is already a process to address wrongdoing in elections and Wonderful was in the middle of that process. Why does Wonderful want to halt that process and silence workers so their voices are not heard?” Strater said. “It’s very clear Wonderful is determined to use its considerable resources to deny farmworkers their rights.”

    In a May 30 filing, the state had urged the court to deny Wonderful’s request for an injunction. California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, arguing on behalf of the ALRB, said Wonderful had failed to demonstrate that the card-check law was causing “irreparable harm or any likelihood of deprivation of its rights.” Bonta also argued that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction in the case.

    Santiago Avila-Gomez, executive secretary with the ALRB, said Thursday evening the agency is “reviewing the ruling carefully and won’t have further comment at this time.”

    The UFW, meanwhile, is pursuing its own legal action against Wonderful. The union has filed a formal complaint of unfair labor practices with the ALRB, accusing Wonderful of coercing workers into attending “captive audience” meetings to urge employees to reject UFW representation. ALRB General Counsel Julia Montgomery issued a complaint in April, similar to an indictment, alleging Wonderful committed unfair labor practices by unlawfully assisting them in drafting declarations to revoke their authorization cards.

    The company has largely denied the allegations.

    This article is part of The Times’ equity reporting initiative, funded by the James Irvine Foundation, exploring the challenges facing low-income workers and the efforts being made to address California’s economic divide.

    [ad_2]

    Melissa Gomez, Rebecca Plevin

    Source link