POLITICS

Stay informed about the latest developments in politics with our comprehensive political news coverage. Get updates on elections, government policies, international relations, and the voices shaping the political landscape.

Sacramento Democrats show their arrogance hazing GOP lawmaker

There are plenty of reasons to dislike Carl DeMaio, if you so choose.

The first-term San Diego assembly member is MAGA to his marrow, bringing Donald Trump’s noxious politics and personal approach to Sacramento. For Democrats, the mere mention of his name has the same effect as nails applied to a chalkboard.

Fellow Republicans aren’t too fond of DeMaio, either.

Party leaders worked strenuously — and far from successfully — to keep DeMaio from being elected last fall. They accused him of criminal wrongdoing. Allies spent millions of dollars to boost his GOP rival.

Republican foes “cite his relentless self-promotion, his criticism of his party and his tendency to take credit for victories he played little or no part in to help him fundraise and elevate his political brand,” CalMatters wrote in a harsh January profile.

None of that, however, excuses the silly and juvenile behavior of the Assembly’s majority Democrats last week when the chamber took up a resolution commemorating Pride month.

DeMaio, the Assembly’s first openly gay Republican member, rose on the floor to voice his objections. Usually lawmakers have around five minutes to offer their remarks without interruption.

Not this time.

DeMaio complained that the resolution — larded with more than three dozen whereas-es — strayed far afield from a straightforward commendation, endorsing some “very controversial and extremist positions” opposed even by members of the LGBQT+ community.

“This is not about affirming the LGBT community,” DeMaio said. “It’s about using them as a political pawn to divide us.”

You can agree or disagree with DeMaio. You can embrace the resolution and its myriad clauses with all your heart, or not. That’s beside the point.

About 90 seconds into his remarks, DeMaio was interrupted by the Assembly member presiding over the debate, Democrat Josh Lowenthal of Long Beach, who said he had a “very important announcement” to make.

And what was the pressing matter that couldn’t possibly wait a second longer? Wishing another Assembly Democrat a happy birthday.

Cheers and applause filled the chamber.

DeMaio resumed, only to be interrupted a short time later. Lowenthal deadpanned that he’d forgotten: It had been another Democratic lawmaker’s birthday just a few days earlier. More cheers and applause.

DeMaio resumed and then was interrupted a third time, so Lowenthal could wish “a very, very happy birthday” to a third Democratic Assembly member, who was marking the occasion the next day.

The response in the chamber, laughter mixed with more whoops and cheers, suggested the hazing by Lowenthal and fellow Democrats was great good fun and oh-so-clever.

It wasn’t.

It was petty. It was stupid.

And it bespoke the arrogance of a super-majority party too used to having its way and bulldozing Sacramento’s greatly outnumbered Republicans.

A few things are worth noting here, seeing as how California is supposed to be governed by a representative democracy.

DeMaio’s political peers may not be terribly enamored of the freshman lawmaker. But he was the clear-cut favorite of voters in San Diego, who sent him to the Assembly by a whopping 57% to 43% margin. Their views and voices deserve to be heard.

Democrats may be California’s majority party, enjoying a sizable registration advantage. They hold 60 of 80 seats in the Assembly and 30 of 40 in the state Senate. But the state has nearly 6 million registered Republicans. There are doubtless many more in California who support the party, or at least its policies and broad philosophy, but choose not to formally affiliate with the GOP.

They, too, deserve to be heard.

A not-insignificant number of California residents feel overlooked, ignored and unrepresented by Democrats and their hegemonic rule over Sacramento. The frustration helped spawn the fruitless and wasteful 2021 attempt to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom — which cost taxpayers more than $200 million — and fuels the perennial fantasy of a breakaway rural state called Jefferson.

To a larger point: One-party rule is not good for California.

“When you’re competing, you’ve got to be sort of on your toes,” said Thad Kousser, a UC San Diego political science professor who’s researched the difference between states with two vibrant political parties and those ruled by one or the other.

“When you’re solidly in control, you don’t feel like you need to prove it to voters,” Kousser went on. “You can write off certain areas of the state. You can ignore legislators in the other party, because you don’t think the shoe will ever be on the other foot.

“None of that,” Kousser concluded, “is good for democracy.”

It’s been well over a decade since Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger left office and Republicans wielded meaningful clout in Sacramento. The last time the GOP controlled the Assembly was when Bill Clinton was in the White House. Gerald Ford was president the last time Republicans had a majority in the state Senate.

That’s not likely to change anytime soon.

In the meantime, Democrats don’t have to love their fellow lawmakers. They don’t even have to like them. But at the very least, Republicans elected to serve in Sacramento should be treated with respect.

Their constituents deserve as much.

Source link

RFK Jr. is dismantling trust in vaccines, the crown jewel of American public health

When it comes to vaccines, virtually nothing that comes out of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s mouth is true.

The man in charge of the nation’s health and well being is impervious to science, expertise and knowledge. His brand of arrogance is not just dangerous, it is lethal. Undermining trust in vaccines, he will have the blood of children around the world on his hands.

Scratch that.

He already does, as he presides over the second largest measles outbreak in this country since the disease was declared “eliminated” a quarter century ago.

“Vaccines have become a divisive issue in American politics,” Kennedy wrote the other day in a Wall Street Journal essay, “but there is one thing all parties can agree on: The U.S. faces a crisis of public trust.”

The lack of self-awareness would be funny if it weren’t so tragic.

Over the past two decades or so, Kennedy has done more than almost any other American to destroy the public’s trust in vaccines and science. And now he’s bemoaning the very thing he has helped cause.

Earlier this month, Kennedy fired the 17 medical and public health experts of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices — qualified doctors and public health experts — and replaced them with a group of (mostly) anti-vaxxers in order to pursue his relentless, ascientific crusade.

On Thursday, at its first meeting, his newly reconstituted council voted to ban the preservative thimerosal from the few remaining vaccines that contain it, despite many studies showing that thimerosal is safe. On that point, even the Food and Drug Administration website is blunt: “A robust body of peer-reviewed scientific studies conducted in the U.S. and other countries support the safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines.”

“If you searched the world wide, you could not find a less suitable person to be leading healthcare efforts in the United States or the world,” psychiatrist Allen Frances told NPR on Thursday. Frances, who chaired the task force that changed how the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM, defines autism, published an essay in the New York Times on Monday explaining why the incidence of autism has increased but is neither an epidemic nor related to vaccines.

“The rapid rise in autism cases is not because of vaccines or environmental toxins,” Frances wrote, “but is rather the result of changes in the way that autism is defined and assessed — changes that I helped put into place.”

But Kennedy is not one to let the facts stand in the way of his cockamamie theories. Manufacturers long ago removed thimerosal from childhood vaccines because of unfounded fears it contained mercury that could accumulate in the brain and unfounded fears about a relationship between mercury and autism.

That did not stop one of Kennedy’s new council members, Lyn Redwood, who once led Children’s Health Defense, the anti-vaccine group founded by Kennedy, from declaring a victory for children.

“Removing a known neurotoxin from being injected into our most vulnerable population is a good place to start with making America healthy again,” Redwood told the committee.

Autism rates, by the way, have continued to climb despite the thimerosal ban. But fear not, gullible Americans, Kennedy has promised to pinpoint a cause for the complex condition by September!

Like his boss, Kennedy just makes stuff up.

On Wednesday, he halted a $1-billion American commitment to Gavi, an organization that provides vaccines to millions of children around the world, wrongly accusing the group of failing to investigate adverse reactions to the diptheria vaccine.

“This is utterly disastrous for children around the world and for public health,” Atul Gawande, a surgeon who worked in the Biden administration, told the New York Times.

Unilaterally, and contrary to the evidence, Kennedy decided to abandon the CDC recommendation that healthy pregnant women receive COVID vaccines. But an unvaccinated pregnant woman’s COVID infection can lead to serious health problems for her newborn. In fact, a study last year found that babies born to such mothers had “unusually high rates” of respiratory distress at or just after birth. According to the CDC, nearly 90% of babies who were hospitalized for COVID-19 had unvaccinated mothers. Also, vaccinated moms can pass protective antibodies to their fetuses, who will not be able to get a COVID shot until they are 6 months old.

What else? Oh yes: Kennedy once told podcaster Joe Rogan that the 1918 Spanish flu epidemic was “vaccine-induced flu” even though no flu vaccine existed at the time.

He also told Rogan that a 2003 study by physician scientist Michael Pichichero, an expert on the use of thimerosal in vaccines, involved feeding babies 6 months old and younger mercury-contaminated tuna sandwiches, and that 64 days later, the mercury was still in their system. “Who would do that?” Kennedy demanded.

Well, no one.

In the study, 40 babies were injected with vaccines containing thimerosal, while a control group of 21 babies got shots that did not contain the preservative. None was fed tuna. Ethylmercury, the form of mercury in thimerosal, the researchers concluded, “seems to be eliminated from blood rapidly via the stools.” (BTW, the mercury found in fish is methylmercury, a different chemical, which can damage the brain and nervous system. In a 2012 deposition for his divorce, which was revealed last year, Kennedy said he suffered memory loss and brain fog from mercury poisoning caused by eating too much tuna fish. He also revealed he has a dead worm in his brain.)

Kennedy’s tuna sandwich anecdote on Rogan’s podcast was “a ChatGPT-level of hallucination,” said Morgan McSweeney, a.k.a. “Dr. Noc,” a scientist with a doctorate in pharmaceutical sciences, focusing on immunology and antibodies. McSweeney debunks the idiotic medical claims of non-scientists like Kennedy in his popular social media videos.

Speaking of AI hallucinations, on Tuesday, at a congressional committee hearing, Kennedy was questioned about inaccuracies, misinformation and made up research and citations for nonexistent studies in the first report from his Make America Healthy Again Commission.

The report focused on how American children are being harmed by their poor diets, exposure to environmental toxins and, predictably, over-vaccination. It was immediately savaged by experts. “This is not an evidence-based report, and for all practical purposes, it should be junked at this point,” Georges C. Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Assn. told the Washington Post.

If Kennedy was sincere about improving the health of American children he would focus on combating real scourges like gun violence, drug overdoses, depression, poverty and lack of access to preventive healthcare. He would be fighting the proposed cuts to Medicaid tooth and nail.

Do you suppose he even knows that over the past 50 years, the lives of an estimated 154 million children have been saved by vaccines?

Or that he cares?

@rabcarian.bsky.social
@rabcarian



Source link

Democrats weigh how to conduct oversight amid Trump officials’ threats, arrests

Just hours after she pleaded not guilty to federal charges brought by the Trump administration, Rep. LaMonica McIver of New Jersey was surrounded by dozens of supportive Democratic colleagues in the halls of the Capitol. The case, they argued, strikes at the heart of congressional power.

“If they can break LaMonica, they can break the House of Representatives,” said New York Rep. Yvette D. Clarke, chair of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Federal prosecutors allege that McIver interfered with law enforcement during a visit with two other House Democrats to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Newark. She calls the charges “baseless.”

It’s far from the only clash between congressional Democrats and the Republican administration as officials ramp up deportations of immigrants around the country.

Sen. Alex Padilla of California was forcibly removed by federal agents, wrestled to the ground and held while attempting to ask a question at a news conference of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. At least six groups of House Democrats have recently been denied entry to ICE detention centers. In early June, federal agents entered the district office of Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) and briefly detained a staffer.

Congressional Republicans have largely criticized Democrats’ behavior as inflammatory and inappropriate, and some have publicly supported the prosecution of McIver.

Often in the dark about the Trump administration’s moves, congressional Democrats are wrestling with how to perform their oversight duties at a time of roiling tensions with the White House and new restrictions on lawmakers visiting federal facilities.

“We have the authority to conduct oversight business, and clearly, House Republicans are not doing that oversight here,” said New Jersey Rep. Rob Menendez, one of the House Democrats who went with McIver to the Newark ICE facility.

“It’s our obligation to continue to do it on-site at these detention facilities. And even if they don’t want us to, we are going to continue to exert our right.”

A stark new reality

The prospect of facing charges for once routine oversight activity has alarmed many congressional Democrats who never expected to face criminal prosecution as elected officials. Lawmakers in both parties were also unnerved by the recent targeted shootings of two Minnesota lawmakers — one of them fatal — and the nation’s tense political atmosphere.

“It’s a moment that calls for personal courage of members of Congress,” said Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.). “I wish that we had more physical protection. I think that’s one of those harsh realities that members of Congress who are not in leadership recognize: that oftentimes, we do this job at our own peril, and we do it anyway.”

The arrests and detentions of lawmakers have led some Democrats to take precautionary measures. Several have consulted with the House general counsel about their right to conduct oversight. Multiple lawmakers also sought personal legal counsel, while others have called for a review of congressional rules to provide greater protections.

“The Capitol Police are the security force for members of Congress. We need them to travel with us, to go to facilities and events that the president may have us arrested for,” said Rep. Jonathan Jackson (D-Ill.).

‘Not a lot of transparency’

As the minority party in the House, Democrats lack the subpoena power to force the White House to provide information. That’s a problem, they say, because the Trump administration is unusually secretive about its actions.

“There’s not a lot of transparency. From day to day, oftentimes, we’re learning about what’s happening at the same time as the rest of the nation,” said Rep. Lucy McBath (D-Ga.), who led a prayer for McIver at the Capitol rally.

To amplify their concerns, Democrats have turned to public letters, confronted officials at congressional hearings and used digital and media outreach to try to create public pressure.

“We’ve been very successful when they come in before committees,” said Rep. Lauren Underwood (D-Ill.), who added that she believed the public inquiries have “100%” resonated with voters.

Tapping into the information pipeline

Congressional Democrats say they often rely on local lawmakers, business leaders and advocates to be their eyes and ears on the ground.

A few Democrats say their best sources of information are across the political aisle, since Republicans typically have clearer lines of communication with the White House.

“I know who to call in Houston with the chamber. I think all of us do that,” Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas) said of how business leaders are keeping her updated.

Garcia said Democrats “need to put more pressure” on leading figures in the agriculture, restaurant and hospitality sectors to take their concerns about the immigrant crackdown to President Trump’s White House.

“They’re the ones he’ll listen to. They’re the ones who can add the pressure. He’s not going to listen to me, a Democrat who was an impeachment manager, who is on the bottom of his list, if I’m on it at all,” Garcia said.

Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) had a working relationship with a for-profit ICE facility in his district until the Department of Homeland Security in February ended reports as part of an agency-wide policy change. A member of Crow’s staff now regularly goes to the facility and waits, at times for hours, until staff at the Aurora facility respond to detailed questions posed by the office.

‘Real oversight’ requires winning elections

Still, many House Democrats concede that they can conduct little of their desired oversight until they are back in the majority.

Rep. Marc Veasey (D-Texas) said that “real oversight power and muscle” only comes “when you have a gavel.”

“Nothing else matters. No rousing oratory, no tours, no speeches, no social media or entertainment, none of that stuff,” Veasey said. “Because the thing that keeps Trump up at night more than anything else is the idea he’s going to lose this House and there’ll be real oversight pressure applied to him.”

Brown writes for the Associated Press.

Source link

Witnesses Tell of Pressure by Carpenter for Contributions : Politics: One lobbyist claims at the corruption trial of the former state senator that he views incident as a shakedown attempt.

Two prosecution witnesses said Tuesday that then-Sen. Paul Carpenter pressured them for campaign contributions when they went to see him about legislative business in the mid-1980s.

One of those witnesses, Daniel Haley, a former lobbyist for the Western Growers Assn., told jurors at Carpenter’s political corruption trial that Carpenter handed him a list of the association’s campaign contributions during a meeting in 1984 or 1985 in the lawmaker’s Capitol office.

Haley said Carpenter told him, something to the effect, “Based on that (list) do you expect me to help you or listen to you?”

“I certainly got the message that we had not contributed to him or his compadres, and he was not interested in the issue I was trying to present,” said Haley, who now heads the Agricultural Marketing Service for the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

“I felt if we had contributed to Sen. Carpenter I would have had an opportunity to address him about my views on the issues,” Haley added.

Carpenter, a Long Beach Democrat who is now a member of the State Board of Equalization, is facing racketeering, extortion and conspiracy charges that accuse him of seeking campaign contributions in exchange for political favors. The trial began Monday.

He has pleaded innocent.

The charges relate to a series of incidents that allegedly took place before Carpenter, 62, left the Legislature in 1987 to take a seat on the tax board.

Another former senator, Joseph Montoya, a Democrat from Whittier, is serving a 6 1/2-year prison sentence on charges stemming from the same FBI investigation at the Capitol.

Haley said he went to Carpenter’s office to see the then-senator about a bill or the appointment of former Republican Assemblyman David Stirling to be chief prosecutor for the state Farm Labor Board.

Instead of discussing legislative issues, Haley said, Carpenter handed him the contribution list. “I was a little shocked, a little embarrassed and a little uncomfortable,” Haley said.

Under cross-examination from defense attorney Gerard Hinckley, Haley said he has a “somewhat blurred recollection” of the meeting and can’t remember precisely what was said and exactly what he wanted to discuss with Carpenter.

But he said he remembered the incident because “of the position I was put in with regard to contributions.”

Another witness, Jeff Thompson, chief lobbyist for the California Correctional Peace Officers Assn., said he felt that Carpenter was suggesting a quid pro quo during a 1985 meeting at Carpenter’s office.

Thompson said he and another police lobbyist, Gavin McHugh, went to see Carpenter about a bill that their organization was backing. Carpenter quickly changed the subject to campaign contributions and why the California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. hadn’t contributed to him, Thompson said.

“The fact that he switched the conversation at that point directly to money put us in a really unusual position,” Thompson said. “That was the most uncomfortable meeting I ever had in my nine years as a lobbyist.”

Hinckley suggested during cross-examination that Thompson didn’t believe when he left the meeting with Carpenter that it was a shakedown.

“Oh, no, quite the contrary,” Thompson said. “We were shaken down in that meeting.”

But Thompson acknowledged telling a federal grand jury that he came to view the meeting as a shakedown only after learning of the FBI investigation of Capitol corruption. He said he never reported the incident until a federal agent telephoned and asked if he had ever been victimized by Carpenter.

Thompson said Carpenter never actually stated that he wanted money for his vote, but the lobbyist said he believed that was what the former lawmaker was suggesting.

“It certainly was weird,” Thompson said. “It was the most unusual pressure (for contributions) I had ever had. I would say his behavior was uncalled for.”

Thompson said Monday that his group gave Carpenter a $1,000 contribution about three months after the meeting.

McHugh testified that he attended the meeting with Carpenter and Thompson.

Carpenter had a document in his hands and told the two lobbyists, “I see you have given significant contributions to Sen. Richardson,” McHugh told jurors.

Carpenter and former Sen. H.L. Richardson (R-Glendora) had a well-publicized clash in 1985 after Carpenter suggested that Richardson was involved in an earlier corruption scandal. No charges were ever filed against Richardson.

“I got the distinct impression . . . that he (Carpenter) was angry with us,” McHugh said, adding that Carpenter “kind of scowled and had a frown on his face” although his voice was soft.

“I was a little shocked and I think I was a little bit intimidated,” McHugh added.

“It was not like any other meeting I had had before or since,” McHugh added. “I had never been asked for any kind of financial support . . . by anyone in the Capitol.”

Source link

Trump’s tax and spending cuts bill clears key test vote in Senate

Senate Republicans voting in a dramatic late Saturday session narrowly cleared a key procedural step as they race to advance President Trump’s package of tax breaks, spending cuts and bolstered deportation funds by his Fourth of July deadline.

The 51-49 vote came after a tumultuous session with Vice President JD Vance on hand if needed to break a tie. Tense scenes played out in the chamber as voting came to a standstill, dragging on for hours as holdout senators huddled for negotiations. In the end, two Republicans opposed the motion to proceed to debate, joining all Democrats and independents.

It’s still a long weekend of work to come.

Republicans are using their majorities in Congress to push aside Democratic opposition, but they have run into a series of political and policy setbacks. Not all GOP lawmakers are on board with proposals to reduce spending on Medicaid, food stamps and other programs as a way to help cover the cost of extending some $3.8 trillion in Trump tax breaks.

Ahead of the expected roll call, the White House released a statement of administrative policy saying it “strongly supports passage” of the bill that “implements critical aspects” of the president’s agenda. Trump was at his golf course in Virginia on Saturday with GOP senators posting about it on social media.

“It’s time to get this legislation across the finish line,” said Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.).

But as the day wore on, billionaire Elon Musk, a key Trump advisor for the first months of the administration, lashed out against the package — as he has in the past — calling it “utterly insane and destructive.”

“The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country!” he said in a post on X.

The 940-page bill was released shortly before midnight Friday, and senators are expected to grind through the hours of all-night debate and amendments in the days ahead. If the Senate is able to pass it, the bill would go back to the House for a final round of votes before it could reach the White House.

With narrow Republican majorities in the House and Senate, leaders need almost every lawmaker on board in the face of essentially unified opposition from Democrats. GOP Sens. Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Rand Paul of Kentucky voted against.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Republicans unveiled the bill “in the dead of night” and are rushing to finish the vote before the public fully knows what’s in it. He was expected to call for a full reading of the text in the Senate overnight, which would take hours.

The weekend session could be a make-or-break moment for Trump’s party, which has invested much of its political capital on his signature domestic policy plan. The president is pushing Congress to wrap it up and has admonished the “grandstanders” among GOP holdouts to fall in line.

The legislation is an ambitious but complicated series of GOP priorities. At its core, it would make permanent many of the tax breaks from Trump’s first term that would otherwise expire by year’s end if Congress fails to act, resulting in a potential tax increase on Americans. The bill would add new breaks, including no taxes on tips, and commit $350 billion to national security, including for Trump’s mass deportation agenda.

But the cutbacks to Medicaid, food stamps and green energy investments, which a top Democrat, Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, said would be a “death sentence” for America’s wind and solar industries, are also causing dissent within GOP ranks.

The Republicans are relying on the reductions to offset the lost tax revenues, but some lawmakers say the cuts go too far, particularly for people receiving healthcare through Medicaid. Meanwhile, conservatives, worried about the nation’s debt, are pushing for steeper cuts.

Tillis, who said he spoke with Trump late Friday explaining his concerns, announced Saturday he cannot support the package as is, largely because he said the healthcare changes would force his state to “make painful decisions like eliminating Medicaid coverage for hundreds of thousands.”

The release of that draft had been delayed as the Senate parliamentarian reviewed the bill to ensure it complied with the chamber’s strict “Byrd rule,” named for the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.). It largely bars policy matters from inclusion in budget bills unless a provision can get 60 votes to overcome objections. That would be a tall order in a Senate with a 53-47 Republican edge and Democrats unified against Trump’s bill.

Republicans suffered a series of setbacks after several proposals, including shifting food stamp costs from the federal government to the states or gutting the funding structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, were deemed out of compliance with the rules.

But over the past few days, Republicans have quickly revised those proposals and reinstated them.

The final text includes a proposal for cuts to the Medicaid provider tax that had run into parliamentary hurdles and objections from several senators worried about the fate of rural hospitals. The new version extends the start date for those cuts and establishes a $25-billion fund to aid rural hospitals and providers. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who had opposed the cuts, vowed “to do everything I can” to make sure the reductions never go into effect.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said that under the House-passed version of the bill, some 10.9 million people would lose their healthcare coverage and at least 3 million fewer would qualify for food aid. The CBO has not yet publicly assessed the Senate draft, which proposes steeper reductions.

Top income earners would see about a $12,000 tax cut under the House bill, while the package would cost the poorest Americans an additional $1,600, the CBO said.

The Senate included a compromise over the so-called SALT provision, a deduction for state and local taxes that has been a top priority of lawmakers from California, New York and other high-tax states, but the issue remains unsettled.

The current SALT cap is $10,000 a year, and a few Republicans wanted to boost it to $40,000 a year. The final draft includes a $40,000 cap but limits it to five years.

Many Republican senators say that is still too generous. At least one House GOP holdout, Rep. Nick LaLota of New York, has said that would be insufficient.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) sent his colleagues home for the weekend with plans to be on call to return to Washington. But as the Senate draft was revealed, House GOP support was uncertain. One Republican, Rep. David Valadao of Hanford, said he was opposed.

Mascaro, Freking and Cappelletti write for the Associated Press. AP writers Ali Swenson and Matthew Daly contributed to this report.

Source link

Protesters line highway in Florida Everglades to oppose ‘Alligator Alcatraz’

A coalition of groups including environmental activists and Native Americans advocating for their ancestral homelands converged outside an airstrip in the Florida Everglades on Saturday to protest the imminent construction of an immigrant detention center.

Hundreds of protesters lined part of U.S. Highway 41 that slices through the marshy Everglades — also known as Tamiami Trail — as dump trucks hauling materials lumbered into the airfield. Cars passing by honked in support as protesters waved signs calling for the protection of the expansive preserve that is home to a few Native tribes and several endangered animal species.

Christopher McVoy, an ecologist, said he saw a steady stream of trucks entering the site while he protested for hours. Environmental degradation was a big reason why he came out Saturday. But as a south Florida city commissioner, he said concerns over immigration raids in his city also fueled his opposition.

“People I know are in tears, and I wasn’t far from it,” he said.

Florida officials have forged ahead over the last week in constructing the compound dubbed “Alligator Alcatraz” within the Everglades’ humid swamplands.

The government fast-tracked the project under emergency powers from an executive order issued by Gov. Ron DeSantis that addresses what he casts as a crisis of illegal immigration. That order lets the state sidestep certain purchasing laws and is why construction has continued despite objections from Miami-Dade County Mayor Daniella Levine Cava and local activists.

The facility will have temporary structures such as heavy-duty tents and trailers to house detained immigrants. The state estimates that by early July, it will have 5,000 immigration detention beds in operation.

The compound’s proponents have said its location in the Florida wetlands — teeming with alligators, invasive Burmese pythons and other reptiles — makes it an ideal spot for immigration detention.

“Clearly, from a security perspective, if someone escapes, you know, there’s a lot of alligators,” DeSantis said Wednesday. “No one’s going anywhere.”

Under DeSantis, Florida has made an aggressive push for immigration enforcement and has been supportive of the federal government’s broader crackdown on illegal immigration. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has backed Alligator Alcatraz, which Secretary Kristi Noem said will be partly funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Native American leaders in the region have seen the construction as an encroachment onto their sacred homelands, which prompted Saturday’s protest. In Big Cypress National Preserve, where the Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport is located, 15 traditional Miccosukee and Seminole villages remain, as well as ceremonial and burial grounds and other gathering sites.

Others have raised human rights concerns over what they condemn as the inhumane housing of immigrants. Worries about environmental effects have also been at the forefront, as groups such as the Center for Biological Diversity and the Friends of the Everglades filed a lawsuit Friday to halt the detention center plans.

“The Everglades is a vast, interconnected system of waterways and wetlands, and what happens in one area can have damaging impacts downstream,” Friends of the Everglades executive director Eve Samples said. “So it’s really important that we have a clear sense of any wetland impacts happening in the site.”

Bryan Griffin, a DeSantis spokesperson, said Friday in response to the litigation that the facility was a “necessary staging operation for mass deportations located at a preexisting airport that will have no impact on the surrounding environment.”

Until the site undergoes a comprehensive environmental review and public comment is sought, the environmental groups say construction should pause. The facility’s speedy establishment is “damning evidence” that state and federal agencies hope it will be “too late” to reverse their actions if they are ordered by a court to do so, said Elise Bennett, a Center for Biological Diversity senior attorney working on the case.

The potential environmental hazards also bleed into other aspects of Everglades life, including a robust tourism industry where hikers walk trails and explore the marshes on airboats, said Floridians for Public Lands founder Jessica Namath, who attended the protest. To place an immigration detention center there makes the area unwelcoming to visitors and feeds into the misconception that the space is in “the middle of nowhere,” she said.

“Everybody out here sees the exhaust fumes, sees the oil slicks on the road, you know, they hear the sound and the noise pollution. You can imagine what it looks like at nighttime, and we’re in an international dark sky area,” Namath said. “It’s very frustrating because, again, there’s such disconnect for politicians.”

Seminera writes for the Associated Press.

Source link

Trust in elections dips as GOP clings to Trump’s ‘Big Lie’

Just over a quarter of Republicans accept President Biden as the winner of the 2020 election, according to a new survey that underscores the instability of American democracy and the growing partisan divide over the legitimacy of elections.

“There was a hope there would see growing acceptance of Biden’s victory over time, as people moved away from the ‘Stop the Steal’ movement after Jan. 6. Instead, we saw the numbers stay in place,” said Brendan Nyhan, a Dartmouth political scientist and one of the founders of Bright Line Watch, an organization that monitors the health of U.S. democracy.

Sinking confidence in election outcomes appears to have been fueled by former President Trump’s “Big Lie” — his continued claims of voter fraud in key states, even though such allegations were repeatedly discredited in numerous lawsuits and audits. The fallout of such lies was especially evident on Jan. 6, when thousands of Trump supporters violently stormed the U.S. Capitol in a brazen attempt to halt lawmakers’ certification of Biden’s victory.

Since then, many Republican officeholders and some of the biggest voices in conservative media have clung to the notion that the election was stolen from Trump.

Bright Line Watch’s November survey, released Thursday morning, shows that only 27% of Republicans accept Biden as the rightful winner — the exact same figure as in the group’s February poll — compared with 94% of Democrats who do.

The survey also shows that the 2020 election and its aftermath have hardened partisan attitudes about future elections, leaving Republicans less confident that their votes will be counted accurately in 2022.

Even amid Trump’s constant rhetoric during the 2020 campaign about a potentially rigged outcome, Democrats and Republicans had roughly equal confidence in October 2020 that the coming election would be decided fairly, with 59% of Democrats and 58% of Republicans believing that would be the case.

But the new survey reveals that a partisan gap has opened up in response to that question. Now, 80% of Democrats believe next year’s midterm election will be fair, with just 42% of Republicans saying the same.

“That’s a really scary fact for our democracy right now, that so many Republican voters don’t have confidence in the election,” said Susan Stokes, another founder of Bright Line Watch and a political scientist at the University of Chicago.

As Trump and so many Republicans have sowed mistrust in last year’s election results, they have used their misinformation campaign to justify new laws in several GOP-controlled states to restrict ballot access and, in some cases, allow partisan lawmakers to overrule election officials in determining outcomes.

That could lead to a scenario in which Democratic voters, even those who understand their party is facing stiff political headwinds next year, lose confidence in the legitimacy of the 2022 electoral results.

“This is an asymmetric moment. Republicans are leading the assault on our democracy,” Nyhan said. “At same time, you can imagine a world where an election is decided because of genuinely dubious election administration practices, and Democrats would become quite distrustful of such an election in the aftermath, and rightfully so.

“You can see a situation where neither side trusts the election results,” he continued. “The potential for a spiral of illegitimacy is real, and that’s not sustainable for our democracy in the long term.”

At the federal level, Democrats have been unable to agree on a legislative response that would protect voting rights, largely because they have the most slender of Senate majorities. Two centrists in the caucus, Sens. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), oppose changing Senate rules to enable Democrats to pass a voting rights law with just 50 votes. And they continue to call for a bipartisan agreement even though few Republicans have been willing to compromise in what has become a zero-sum policy battleground.

The November survey, which questioned 2,750 individuals, also found that partisans tend to overestimate the antidemocratic leanings of the other side, like a reflection of the increasingly partisan nature of cable news and the proliferation of incendiary politically oriented posts and memes across social media platforms.

Compared to past Bright Line Watch surveys, fewer respondents expressed support for political violence. Only 9% condoned making threats, 8% were OK with verbal harassment, and just 4% said they accepted the kind of mob violence that occurred on Jan. 6.

But researchers worry those numbers may not reflect how many partisans might be led to take or support extreme actions that they claim to oppose, with the justification that they need to overcome alleged extremism by the opposing side.

“It’s still millions of Americans condoning violence, and that makes for a very explosive environment and is quite dangerous,” Stokes said. “What people are saying to themselves is: ‘Whatever my side is doing, it’s worth it, because the other side is so terrible.’

“It’s not at all hard to imagine a lot of people in the public going along with a real stealing of the election next time because they have come to believe the other side stole it — or even if they don’t, it’s so important to keep the other side out, it doesn’t matter how you do it.”

Source link

L.A. County leaders weigh legal action following violent ICE arrests

Citing a recent arrest by immigration agents that bloodied a man in the unincorporated area of Valinda, Los Angeles County Supervisor Hilda Solis said she wants the county to explore a legal counterattack against what she described as the federal government’s “unconstitutional immigration enforcement practices.”

In a statement Saturday, Solis said that she plans to co-sponsor a motion at Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting asking the county’s attorney to explore “all legal remedies available to the County to protect the civil rights of our residents and prevent federal law enforcement personnel from engaging in any unconstitutional or unlawful immigration enforcement.”

Such conduct, the motion says, includes the “unlawfully stopping, questioning or detaining individuals without reasonable suspicion, or arresting individuals without probable cause or a valid warrant.”

“As these immigration raids continue to terrorize our communities, I’m deeply disturbed by the forceful detainment of a man in unincorporated Valinda. This incident raises serious concerns about the conduct and legality of these actions, and demonstrates a violation of constitutional rights and due process,” Solis, whose district stretches from Eagle Rock to Pomona, said in a statement.

The Trump administration’s ongoing crackdown on undocumented immigrants, the motion says, has sown widespread fear throughout the region and emptied out normally bustling public spaces, with people “avoiding going to work or visiting grocery stores and restaurants, skipping medical appointments.”

This has had a “tremendous negative impact” on not only the county’s economy, but also its “ability to provide for the health and welfare of our residents,” according to the motion.

The L.A. City Council introduced a similar motion earlier this month seeking to prohibit federal agents from carrying out unconstitutional stops, searches or arrests of city residents.

Federal officials have said their agents are defending themselves against increasingly hostile crowds, which in some cases are interfering with arrests.

Top officials, such as Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, have argued that the government’s raids are targeting “criminals that have been out on our street far too long.” A recent Times analysis suggested that the majority of those who were arrested in early June were not convicted criminals, however.

For weeks, social media has been flooded with videos of federal agents, their faces often shrouded by masks, violently arresting bystanders who are filming their actions, dragging a taco stand vendor by her arm and tossing smoke bombs into a crowd of angry onlookers. One widely circulated clip showed a military-style vehicle accompanying federal law enforcement officers during an apparent raid at a home in Compton earlier this month — part of what critics have called an alarming escalation in tactics.

Footage reviewed by The Times shows a person in the turret of the vehicle pointing what appears to be a less-lethal projectile launcher downward, but it’s unclear whether any shots were fired.

In her statement, Solis cited another federal operation that was at the center of a viral video.

That footage, shot by a bystander and obtained by ABC 7, shows federal agents in tactical vests and masks smashing the windows of a large white pickup truck before apparently pulling out a man from inside.

Several agents are later seen kneeling on top of the man who is bleeding from an apparent head wound, even as a crowd of onlookers demand that the man be released. In one clip, an agent is shown pushing the man’s face into the pavement.

Source link

At Supreme Court, steady wins for conservative states and Trump’s claims of executive power

The Supreme Court term that ended Friday will not be remembered for blockbuster rulings like those recent years that struck down the right to abortion and college affirmative action.

The justices scaled back their docket this year and spent much of their energy focused on deciding fast-track appeals from President Trump. His administration’s lawyers complained too many judges were standing in the way of Trump’s agenda.

On Friday, the court’s conservatives agreed to rein in district judges, a procedural victory for Trump.

What’s been missing so far, however, is a clear ruling on whether the president has abided by the law or overstepped his authority under the U.S. Constitution.

On the final two days of the term, the court’s conservative majority provided big wins for Republican-leaning states, religious parents and Trump.

The justices gave states more authority to prohibit medical treatments for transgender teens, to deny Medicaid funds to Planned Parenthood clinics and to enforce age-verification laws for online porn sites.

Each came with the familiar 6-3 split, with the Republican appointees siding with the GOP-led states, while the Democratic appointees dissented.

These rulings, while significant, were something short of nationwide landmark decisions — celebrated victories for the Republican half of the nation but having no direct or immediate effect on Democratic-led states.

California lawmakers are not likely to pass measures to restrict gender-affirming care or to prohibit women on Medicaid from obtaining birth control, pregnancy testing or medical screenings at a Planned Parenthood clinic.

The new decisions echoed the Dobbs ruling three years ago that struck down Roe vs. Wade and the constitutional right to abortion.

As the conservative justices noted, the decision in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health did not outlaw abortion nationwide. However, it did allow conservative states to do so. Since then, 17 Republican-led states in the South and Midwest have adopted new laws to prohibit most or all abortions.

On this front, the court’s decisions reflect a “federalism,” or states-rights style of conservatism, that was dominant in decades past under President Reagan and two of the court’s conservative leaders, Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

Both were Arizona Republicans (and in O’Connor’s case, a former state legislator) who came to the court with that view that Washington holds too much power and wields too much control over states and local governments.

With the nation sharply divided along partisan lines, today’s conservative court could be praised or defended for freeing states to make different choices on the “culture wars.”

The other big winner so far this year has been Trump and his broad claims of executive power.

Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has asserted he has total authority to run federal agencies, cut their spending and fire most of their employees, all without the approval of Congress, which created and funded the agencies.

He has also claimed the authority to impose tariffs of any amount on any country and also change his mind a few days later.

He has dispatched National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles against the wishes of the governor and the mayor.

He has asserted he can punish universities and law firms.

He has claimed he can revise by executive order the 14th Amendment and its birthright citizenship clause.

So far, the Supreme Court has not ruled squarely on Trump’s broad assertions of power. But the justices have granted a series of emergency appeals from Trump’s lawyers and set aside lower court orders that blocked his initiatives from taking effect.

The theme has been that judges are out of line, not the president.

Friday’s ruling limiting nationwide injunctions set out that view in a 26-page opinion. The conservatives agreed that some judges have overstepped their authority by ruling broadly based on a single lawsuit.

The justices have yet to rule on whether the president has overstepped his power.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett summed up the dispute in a revealing comment responding to a dissent from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. “Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,” she wrote.

Missing from all this is the earlier strain of conservatism that opposed concentrated power in Washington — and in this instance, in one person.

Last year offered a hint of what was to come. A year ago, the court ended its term by declaring the president is immune from being prosecuted for his official acts while in the White House.

That decision, in Trump vs. United States, shielded the former and soon-to-be president from the criminal law.

The Constitution does not mention any such immunity for ex-presidents charged with crimes, but Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said a shield of immunity was necessary to “enable the the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution.”

Since returning to the White House, Trump has not been accused of exercising “undue caution.”

Instead, he appears to have viewed the court’s opinion as confirming his unchecked power as the nation’s chief executive. Trump advisors say that because the president was elected, he has a mandate and the authority to put his priorities and policies into effect.

But the Supreme Court’s conservatives did not take that view when President Biden took office promising to take action on climate change and to reduce the burden of student loan debt.

In both areas, the Roberts court ruled that the Biden administration had exceeded its authority under the laws passed by Congress.

Away from Washington, the most significant decision from this term may be Friday’s ruling empowering parents.

The six justices on the right ruled parents have a right to remove their children from certain public school classes that offend their religious beliefs. They objected to new storybooks and lessons for young children with LGBTQ+ themes.

In recent years, the court, led by Roberts, has championed the “free exercise” of religion that is protected by the 1st Amendment. In a series of decisions, the court has exempted Catholic schools and charities from laws or regulations on, for example, providing contraceptives to employees.

Friday’s ruling in a Maryland case extended that religious liberty right into the schools and ruled for Muslim and Catholic parents who objected to new LGBTQ+-themed storybooks.

At first, the school board said parents could have their young children “opt out” of those classes. But when too many parents took the offer, the school board rescinded it.

The clash between progressive educators and conservative parents reached the court when the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty appealed on behalf of the parents.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said the parents believed the books and stories offended their religious beliefs, and he ordered school authorities to “to notify them in advance whenever one of the books in question is to be used … and allow them to have their children excused from that instruction.”

This decision may have a broader impact than any from this term because it empowers parents nationwide. But it too has limits. It does not require the schools to change their curriculum and their lessons or remove any books from the shelves.

The conservatives fell one vote short in a case that could have brought about a far-reaching change in American schools. Split 4 to 4, the justices could not rule to uphold the nation’s first publicly funded, church-run charter school.

In the past, Roberts had voted to allow students to use state tuition grants in religious schools, but he appeared uncertain about using tax money to operate a church-run school.

But that question is almost certain to return to the court. Barrett stepped aside from the Oklahoma case heard in April because friends and former colleagues at the Notre Dame Law School had filed the appeal. But in a future case, she could participate and cast a deciding vote.

Source link

Biden, Harris, Walz attend funeral of slain Minnesota lawmaker Melissa Hortman

Democratic former Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman was honored for her legislative accomplishments and her humanity during a funeral Saturday where former President Biden and former Vice President Kamala Harris joined more than 1,000 mourners.

Hortman and her husband, Mark, were shot to death in their home two weeks ago by a man posing as a police officer that Minnesota’s chief federal prosecutor has called an assassination. The assailant also shot and seriously wounded a Democratic state senator and his wife at their home.

“Melissa Hortman will be remembered as the most consequential speaker in Minnesota history. I get to remember her as a close friend, a mentor and the most talented legislator I have ever known,” Gov. Tim Walz said in his eulogy. ”For seven years, I have had the privilege of signing her agenda into law. I know millions of Minnesotans get to live their lives better because she and Mark chose public service and politics.”

Neither Biden nor Harris spoke, but they sat in the front row with the governor and his wife, Gwen. Biden also paid his respects Friday as the Hortmans and their golden retriever, Gilbert, lay in state in the Minnesota Capitol Rotunda in St. Paul. Biden also visited the wounded senator, John Hoffman, in a hospital.

Hortman was the first woman and one of fewer than 20 Minnesotans to lie in state at the Capitol. It was the first time a couple have been accorded the honor, and the first for a dog. Gilbert was seriously wounded in the attack and had to be euthanized.

Hortman, who was first elected in 2004, helped pass an expansive agenda of liberal initiatives including free lunches for public school students during a momentous 2023 session as the chamber’s speaker, along with expanded protections for abortion and trans rights. With the House split 67 to 67 between Democrats and Republicans this year, she yielded the gavel to a Republican under a power-sharing deal, took the title speaker emerita and helped break a budget impasse that threatened to shut down state government.

Walz said Hortman saw her mission as “to get as much good done for as many people as possible.” He said her focus on people was what made her so effective.

“She certainly knew how to get her way. No doubt about that,” Walz said. “But she never made anyone feel that they’d gotten rolled at a negotiating table. That wasn’t part of it for her, or a part of who she was. She didn’t need somebody else to lose” for her to win, he said.

The governor said the best way to honor the Hortmans would be by following their example.

“Maybe it is this moment where each of us can examine the way we work together, the way we talk about each other, the way we fight for things we care about,” Walz said. “A moment when each of us can recommit to engaging in politics and life the way Mark and Melissa did — fiercely, enthusiastically, heartily, but without ever losing sight of our common humanity.”

Dozens of state legislators who served with Hortman attended. The Rev. Daniel Griffith, pastor and rector of the Basilica, led the service. Other clergy present included Archbishop Bernard Hebda of the Saint Paul and Minneapolis Archdiocese.

The man accused of killing the Hortmans at their home in the Minneapolis suburb of Brooklyn Park and wounding Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, at their home in nearby Champlin on June 14 made a brief court appearance Friday. He’s due back in court Thursday.

Vance Boelter, 57, of Green Isle, Minn., surrendered near his home the night of June 15 after what authorities called the largest manhunt in Minnesota history.

Boelter has not entered a plea. Prosecutors need to secure a grand jury indictment first. His lawyers have declined to comment on the charges, which could carry the federal death penalty.

Friends have described Boelter as an evangelical Christian with politically conservative views and a supporter of President Trump. Prosecutors have declined to speculate on a motive.

Karnowski writes for the Associated Press.

Source link

What’s next for birthright citizenship after the Supreme Court’s ruling

The legal battle over President Trump’s move to end birthright citizenship is far from over despite his major Supreme Court victory Friday limiting nationwide injunctions.

Immigrant advocates are vowing to fight to ensure birthright citizenship remains the law as the Republican president tries to do away with a more than century-old constitutional precedent.

The high court’s ruling sends cases challenging the president’s birthright citizenship executive order back to the lower courts. But the ultimate fate of Trump’s policy remains uncertain.

Here’s what to know about birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court’s ruling and what happens next.

What does birthright citizenship mean?

Birthright citizenship makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally.

The practice goes back to soon after the Civil War, when Congress ratified the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, in part to ensure that Black people, including formerly enslaved Americans, had citizenship.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,” the amendment states.

Thirty years later, Wong Kim Ark, a man born in the U.S. to Chinese parents, was refused reentry into the U.S. after traveling overseas. His suit led to the Supreme Court explicitly ruling that the amendment gives citizenship to anyone born in the United States, no matter their parents’ legal status.

It has been seen since then as an intrinsic part of U.S. law, with only a few exceptions, such as for children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats.

Trump’s longtime goal

Trump signed an executive order upon assuming office in January that seeks to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. The order is part of the president’s hard-line anti-immigration agenda, and he has called birthright citizenship a “magnet for illegal immigration.”

Trump and his supporters focus on one phrase in the amendment — “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” — which they contend means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally.

A series of federal judges have said that’s not true and issued nationwide injunctions stopping his order from taking effect.

“I’ve been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,” U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said at a hearing this year in his Seattle courtroom.

In Greenbelt, Md., a Washington suburb, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that “the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed” Trump’s interpretation of birthright citizenship.

Is Trump’s order constitutional?

The high court’s ruling was a major victory for the Trump administration in that it limited an individual judge’s authority in granting nationwide injunctions. The administration hailed the ruling as a monumental check on the powers of individual district court judges, whom Trump supporters have argued are usurping the president’s authority with rulings blocking his priorities on immigration and other matters.

But the Supreme Court did not address the merits of Trump’s bid to enforce his birthright citizenship executive order.

“The Trump administration made a strategic decision, which I think quite clearly paid off, that they were going to challenge not the judges’ decisions on the merits, but on the scope of relief,” said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor.

Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi told reporters at the White House that the administration is “very confident” that the high court will ultimately side with the administration on the merits of the case.

Uncertainty ahead

The justices kicked the cases challenging the birthright citizenship policy back down to the lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the new ruling. The executive order remains blocked for at least 30 days, giving lower courts and the parties time to sort out the next steps.

The Supreme Court’s ruling leaves open the possibility that groups challenging the policy could still get nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits and seek certification as a nationwide class. Within hours after the ruling, two class-action suits had been filed in Maryland and New Hampshire seeking to block Trump’s order.

But obtaining nationwide relief through a class action is difficult as courts have put up hurdles to doing so over the years, said Suzette Malveaux, a Washington and Lee University law school professor.

“It’s not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem of not having nationwide relief,” said Malveaux, who had urged the high court not to eliminate the nationwide injunctions.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who penned the court’s dissenting opinion, urged the lower courts to “act swiftly on such requests for relief and to adjudicate the cases as quickly as they can so as to enable this Court’s prompt review” in cases “challenging policies as blatantly unlawful and harmful as the Citizenship Order.”

Opponents of Trump’s order warned there would be a patchwork of policies across the states, leading to chaos and confusion without nationwide relief.

“Birthright citizenship has been settled constitutional law for more than a century,” said Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, president and chief executive of Global Refuge, a nonprofit that supports refugees and migrants. “By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear.”

Sullivan and Richer write for the Associated Press. AP writers Mark Sherman and Lindsay Whitehurst in Washington and Mike Catalini in Trenton, N.J., contributed to this report.

Source link

South Asians and Muslims hopeful after Mamdani win in New York

The success of Zohran Mamdani in New York City’s Democratic primary for mayor is thrilling for Hari Kondabolu, a stand-up comedian who’s been friends with him for 15 years.

Mamdani stunned the political establishment when he declared victory in the primary on Tuesday, a ranked-choice election in which his strongest competition, former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, conceded defeat.

When he launched his campaign, the democratic socialist ranked near the bottom of the pack. Now, the 33-year-old state assemblyman has a chance to be New York City’s first Asian American and Muslim mayor.

Mamdani’s family came to the United States when he was 7, and he became a citizen in 2018. He was born to Indian parents in Kampala, Uganda.

For Kondabolu, this moment is not just exciting, but emotional.

“I think so many of us have had those experiences in New York of being brown and in a city that has always been really diverse and feels like ours. But after 9/11, like you start to question it like, is this our city too?” Kondabolu said. “And 25 years later … it’s surreal, like this is the same city but it’s not because we’ve elected this person.”

Mamdani’s campaign has piqued the interest of many Indian, Pakistani and other South Asian Americans, as well as Muslims — even those who may not agree with Mamdani on many issues. Some see his rise as a sign of hope in a city where racism and xenophobia erupted following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Riveted by the primary election

Many of New York City’s more than 300,000 South Asian residents have been inspired by Mamdani’s extraordinary trajectory.

“My mom was texting her friends to vote for him. I’ve never seen my mother do that before,” Kondabolu said. “So the idea that it’s gotten our whole family activated in this way — this is, like, personal.”

Snigdha Sur, founder and chief executive of the Juggernaut, an online publication reporting on South Asians, has been fascinated by the response from some people in India and the diaspora.

“So many global South Asians … they’re like, ‘Oh, this guy is my mayor and I don’t live in New York City,’” Sur said.

At the same time, some are also concerned or angered by Mamdani’s past remarks about Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, whom he called a “war criminal.”

In 2005, Washington revoked Modi’s visa to the U.S., citing concerns that, as chief minister of the state of Gujarat, he did not act to stop communal violence during 2002 anti-Muslim riots that left more than 1,000 people dead. An investigation approved by the Indian Supreme Court later absolved Modi. Rights groups have accused Modi’s government of widespread attacks and discrimination against India’s Muslims and other minorities.

In Michigan, Thasin Sardar has been following Mamdani’s ascent online. When he first heard him, the candidate struck him as “genuine” and he felt “an instant connection,” he said.

“As a Muslim American, this victory puts my trust back in the people,” said Sardar, who was born and raised in India. “I am happy that there are people who value the candidate and his policies more than his personal religious beliefs and didn’t vote him down because of the color of his skin, or the fact that he was an immigrant with an uncommon name.”

New York voter Zainab Shabbir said family members in California and elsewhere have also excitedly taken note.

“My family in California, they were very much like, ‘Oh, it’s so nice to see a South Asian Muslim candidate be a mayor of a major city,’” she said. A brother told her Mamdani’s rise is a great example for his kids, she said.

But the 34-year-old — who donated, voted and canvassed for Mamdani — said it was his vision for New York City that was the draw for her. She and her husband briefly chatted with Mamdani at a fundraiser and she found him to be “very friendly and genuine.”

She suspects that for some who aren’t very politically active, Mamdani’s political ascent could make a difference.

“There’s a lot of Muslim communities like my parents’ generation who are focused a lot more on the politics back home and less on the politics here in America,” said Shabbir. “Seeing people like Zohran Mamdani be in office, it’ll really change that perspective in a lot of people.”

Embracing Indian and Muslim roots

Supporters and pundits agree that Mamdani’s campaign has demonstrated social media savvy and authenticity. He visited multiple mosques. In videos, he speaks in Hindi or gives a touch of Bollywood. Other South Asian American politicians such as Democratic Bay Area congressman Ro Khanna praised that.

“I love that he didn’t run away from his heritage. I mean, he did video clips with Amitabh Bachchan and Hindi movies,” said Khanna, referencing the Indian actor. “He shows that one can embrace their roots and their heritage and yet succeed in American politics.”

But his triumph also reflects “the urgency of the economic message, the challenge that people are facing in terms of rent, in terms of the cost of living, and how speaking to that is so powerful,” Khanna said.

Tanzeela Rahman, a daughter of Muslim immigrants from Bangladesh, said she grew up “very low income” in New York.

“I felt seen by him in a way politicians have not seen me ever,” the 29-year-old financial systems analyst said. “I think very few people in government understand … how hard it is to survive in New York City.”

She found Mamdani to be “unabashedly Muslim” and also “a voice, who, literally, to me sounds like a New Yorker who’s stepping in and saying, ‘Hey, let’s reclaim our power,’” she said.

While Mamdani has been speaking to the working class, he had a somewhat privileged upbringing. His mother is filmmaker Mira Nair and his father, Mahmood Mamdani, is a professor at Columbia University.

He lived in Queens but attended the Bronx High School of Science. Even as a teen, he cared about social justice, recalled Kondabolu, his comedian friend.

His campaign messaging on issues such as affordable housing and free bus rides might not resonate with South Asian households in New York City who have income levels above the median. But his campaign and “great kind of sound bites” earned support from that demographic too, according to Sur.

“It was, I think, a surprise that he did so well among the wealthiest, including his own community,” Sur said.

Mamdani’s outspoken support for Palestinian causes and criticism of Israel and its military campaign in Gaza resonated with pro-Palestinian residents, including Muslims, but caused tension in the mayor’s race. Some of his positions and remarks on the charged issue have drawn recriminations from opponents and some Jewish groups, though he’s also been endorsed by some Jewish politicians and activists.

Racism and xenophobia

Mamdani’s success immediately elicited strong anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant rhetoric from some high-profile conservatives on social media, including pro-Trump media personality Charlie Kirk, who posted that “legal immigration can ruin your country.” In response, Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.), the youngest member of Congress, wrote on X: “For years they sold people the lie of ‘we have no problem if you come the right way!’”

Mamdani’s supporters aren’t concerned that racism and Islamophobia will distract from his campaign. Those feelings clearly weren’t “enough for him to lose” the primary, Kondabolu said.

“There’s a new generation that wants their voice heard, and that generation came out in full force, not just by voting, but by, like, getting all these other people to be emotionally invested in this candidate,” he said. “That’s extraordinary.”

Tang and Fam write for the Associated Press. AP writer Matt Brown in Washington contributed to this report.

Source link

Many forget death, disabilities by diseases before widespread vaccination

In the time before widespread vaccination, death often came early.

Devastating infectious diseases ran rampant in America, killing millions of children and leaving others with lifelong health problems. These illnesses were the main reason why nearly 1 in 5 children in 1900 never made it to their 5th birthday.

Over the next century, vaccines virtually wiped out long-feared scourges like polio and measles and drastically reduced the toll of many others. Today, however, some preventable, contagious diseases are making a comeback as vaccine hesitancy — often fed by misinformation — pushes immunization rates down. And well-established vaccines are facing suspicion even from public officials, including the head of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime anti-vaccine activist.

“This concern, this hesitancy, these questions about vaccines are a consequence of the great success of the vaccines — because they eliminated the diseases,” said Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. “If you’re not familiar with the disease, you don’t respect or even fear it. And therefore you don’t value the vaccine.”

Anti-vaccine activists even portray the shots as a threat, focusing on the rare risk of serious side effects while ignoring the far larger risks posed by the diseases — and years of real-world data that experts say prove the vaccines are safe.

Some Americans know the reality of these preventable diseases all too well. For them, news of measles outbreaks and rising whooping cough cases brings back terrible memories of lives forever changed — and a longing to spare others from similar pain.

Getting rubella while pregnant

With a mother’s practiced, guiding hand, 80-year-old Janith Farnham helped steer her 60-year-old daughter’s walker through a Sioux Falls art center. They stopped at a painting of a cow wearing a hat.

Janith pointed to the hat, then to her daughter Jacque’s Minnesota Twins cap. Jacque did the same.

“That’s so funny!” Janith said, leaning in close to say the words in sign language too.

Jacque was born with congenital rubella syndrome, which can cause a host of issues including hearing impairment, eye problems, heart defects and intellectual disabilities. There was no vaccine against rubella back then, and Janith contracted the viral illness very early in the pregnancy, when she had up to a 90% chance of giving birth to a baby with the syndrome.

Janith recalled knowing “things weren’t right” almost immediately. The baby wouldn’t respond to sounds or look at anything but lights. She didn’t like to be held close. Her tiny heart sounded like it purred — evidence of a problem that required surgery at 4 months old.

Janith did all she could to help Jacque thrive, sending her to the Colorado School for the Deaf and the Blind and using skills she honed as a special education teacher. She and other parents of children with the syndrome shared insights in a support group.

Meanwhile, the condition kept taking its toll. As a young adult, Jacque developed diabetes, glaucoma and autistic behaviors. Eventually, arthritis set in.

Today, Jacque lives in an adult residential home a short drive from Janith’s place. Above her bed is a net overflowing with stuffed animals. On a headboard shelf are photo books Janith created, filled with memories such as birthday parties and trips to Mt. Rushmore.

Jacque’s days typically begin with an insulin shot and breakfast before she heads off to a day program. She gets together with her mom four or five days a week. They often hang out at Janith’s town home, where Jacque has another bedroom decorated with her own artwork and quilts Janith sewed for her. Jacque loves playing with Janith’s dog, watching sports on television and looking up things on her iPad.

Janith marvels at Jacque’s sense of humor, gratefulness, curiosity and affectionate nature despite all she’s endured. Jacque is generous with kisses and often signs “double I love yous” to family, friends and new people she meets.

“When you live through so much pain and so much difficulty and so much challenge, sometimes I think: Well, she doesn’t know any different,” Janith said.

Given what her family has been through, Janith believes younger people are being selfish if they choose not to get their children the MMR shot against measles, mumps and rubella.

“It’s more than frustrating. I mean, I get angry inside,” she said. “I know what can happen, and I just don’t want anybody else to go through this.”

Consequences of delaying vaccine

More than half a century has passed, but Patricia Tobin still vividly recalls getting home from work, opening the car door and hearing her mother scream. Inside the house, her little sister Karen lay unconscious on the bathroom floor.

It was 1970, and Karen was 6. She’d contracted measles shortly after Easter. Though an early vaccine was available, it wasn’t required for school in Miami where they lived. Karen’s doctor discussed immunizing the first-grader, but their mother didn’t share his sense of urgency.

“It’s not that she was against it,” Tobin said. “She just thought there was time.”

Then came a measles outbreak. Karen — whom Tobin described as a “very endearing, sweet child” who would walk around the house singing — quickly became very sick. The afternoon she collapsed in the bathroom, Tobin, then 19, called the ambulance. Karen never regained consciousness.

“She immediately went into a coma and she died of encephalitis,” said Tobin, who stayed at her bedside in the hospital. “We never did get to speak to her again.”

Today, all states require that children get certain vaccines to attend school. But a growing number of people are making use of exemptions allowed for medical, religious or philosophical reasons. Vanderbilt’s Schaffner said fading memories of measles outbreaks were exacerbated by a fraudulent, retracted study claiming a link between the MMR shot and autism.

The result? Most states are below the 95% vaccination threshold for kindergartners — the level needed to protect communities against measles outbreaks.

“I’m very upset by how cavalier people are being about the measles,” Tobin said. “I don’t think that they realize how destructive this is.”

Polio changed a life twice

One of Lora Duguay’s earliest memories is lying in a hospital isolation ward with her feverish, paralyzed body packed in ice. She was 3 years old.

“I could only see my parents through a glass window. They were crying and I was screaming my head off,” said Duguay, 68. “They told my parents I would never walk or move again.”

It was 1959, and Duguay, of Clearwater, Fla., had polio. It mostly preyed on children and was one of the most feared diseases in the U.S., experts say, causing some terrified parents to keep children inside and avoid crowds during epidemics.

Given polio’s visibility, the vaccine against it was widely and enthusiastically welcomed. But the early vaccine that Duguay got was only about 80% to 90% effective. Not enough people were vaccinated or protected yet to stop the virus from spreading.

Duguay initially defied her doctors. After intensive treatment and physical therapy, she walked and even ran — albeit with a limp. She got married, raised a son and worked as a medical transcriptionist.

But in her early 40s, she noticed she couldn’t walk as far as she used to. A doctor confirmed she was in the early stages of post-polio syndrome, a neuromuscular disorder that worsens over time.

One morning, she tried to stand up and couldn’t move her left leg.

After two weeks in a rehab facility, she started painting to stay busy. Eventually, she joined arts organizations and began showing and selling her work. Art “gives me a sense of purpose,” she said.

These days, she can’t hold up her arms long enough to create big oil paintings at an easel. So she pulls her wheelchair up to an electric desk to paint on smaller surfaces such as stones and petrified wood.

The disease that changed her life twice is no longer a widespread problem in the country.

So many children get the vaccine — which is far more effective than earlier versions — that it doesn’t just protect individuals but it prevents occasional cases that arrive in the U.S. from spreading further. “Herd immunity” keeps everyone safe by preventing outbreaks that can sicken the vulnerable.

But after three decades of eradication, the U.S. has seen isolated polio outbreaks in recent years, typically in communities with low vaccination rates.

After whooping cough, ‘she was gone’

Every night, Katie Van Tornhout rubs a plaster cast of a tiny foot, a vestige of the daughter she lost to whooping cough at just 37 days old.

Callie Grace was born on Christmas Eve 2009 after Van Tornhout and her husband tried five years for a baby. She arrived six weeks early but healthy.

“She loved to have her feet rubbed,” said the 40-year-old Lakeville, Ind., mother. “She was this perfect baby.”

When Callie turned a month old, she began to cough, prompting a visit to the doctor, who didn’t suspect anything serious. By the next night, Callie was doing worse. They went back.

In the waiting room, she became blue and limp in Van Tornhout’s arms. The medical team whisked her away and beat lightly on her back. She took a deep breath and giggled.

Though the giggle was reassuring, the Van Tornhouts went to the ER, where Callie’s skin turned blue again. For a while, medical treatment helped. But at one point she started squirming, and medical staff frantically tried to save her.

“Within minutes,” Van Tornhout said, “she was gone.”

Van Tornhout recalled sitting with her husband and their lifeless baby for four hours, “just talking to her, thinking about what could have been.”

Callie’s viewing was held on her original due date — the same day the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention called to confirm she had pertussis, or whooping cough. She was too young for the Tdap vaccine against it and was exposed to someone who hadn’t gotten their booster shot.

Today, next to the cast of Callie’s foot is an urn with her ashes and a glass curio cabinet filled with mementos including baby shoes.

“My kids to this day will still look up and say, ‘Hey, Callie, how are you?’” said Van Tornhout, who has four children and a stepson. “She’s part of all of us every day.”

Van Tornhout now advocates for childhood immunization through the nonprofit Vaccinate Your Family. She also shares her story with people she meets, including a pregnant customer who came into the restaurant her family ran saying she didn’t want to immunize her baby. She later returned with her vaccinated 4-month-old.

“It’s up to us as adults to protect our children — like, that’s what a parent’s job is,” Van Tornhout said. “I watched my daughter die from something that was preventable.… You don’t want to walk in my shoes.”

Ungar writes for the Associated Press.

Source link

How does NYC primary win reverberate in Los Angeles politics?

Good morning, and welcome to L.A. on the Record — our City Hall newsletter. It’s Noah Goldberg, giving you the latest on city and county government.

Zohran Mamdani’s resounding victory in the New York City Democratic mayoral primary has turned the heads of progressive elected officials in Los Angeles.

Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez called it the “biggest victory for a socialist candidate probably in America.”

Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez said Angelenos should take note.

“What it shows is that we can win. We can win in major cities,” she said.

Councilmember Ysabel Jurado was bursting with excitement about the results from a city 3,000 miles away.

“Having a DSA-backed mayor is freaking amazing,” she said about the prospect of Mamdani, who was backed by the Democratic Socialists of America, winning the general election in November.

While Mamdani’s primary upset over former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo injected new excitement into the left flank of the Los Angeles political scene — one DSA member called it a “we’re so back moment” — it also highlighted vastly different political terrains in the two coastal cities, starting with executive leadership.

Mamdani is a 33-year-old democratic socialist who was elected to the New York state assembly in 2020. He ran in the Democratic mayoral primary on a far-left agenda, promising to freeze the rent in rent-stabilized apartments and to make city buses free.

New York’s current mayor, Eric Adams, ran as a Democrat in 2021 but will be an independent candidate in the general election, after Trump’s Department of Justice dropped bribery charges against him. In line with his offer to assist in enforcing federal immigration laws if the charges were dropped, Adams has since attempted to allow Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents into the city jails (a judge blocked that plan after the City Council sued).

Southern California, on the other hand, has emerged as the epicenter of the president’s crackdown on undocumented immigrants, and Mayor Karen Bass has been an outspoken critic of the president’s immigration agenda.

Trump’s ramping up of immigration enforcement and subsequent deployment of the California National Guard and U.S. Marines to Los Angeles has prompted the city’s progressive and moderate Democratic politicians to band together and set aside their differences.

Councilmembers on the left flank cited the different political realities in the two cities when speaking about the 2026 Los Angeles mayoral election, with the field of candidates still taking shape.

“We don’t have a candidate on the left … as a progressive. We have Mayor Karen Bass, who is running again,” Hernandez said. “She’s moving how she needs to move and has been doing a good job at least in handling this crisis that we’re in right now.”

Hernandez said she is focused on winning her own reelection bid in a crowded field.

Soto-Martínez said the city is “under siege” by the federal government.

“We are trying to show unity against the federal takeover of our city, and so that’s how I feel about it right now, and that might change a year from now, but that’s how I feel,” he said. “I support the mayor and her reelect, and I think her roots from community organizing is something we need right now.”

No progressive candidate has emerged to run against Bass. Before the immigration raids, Bass’ performance in the wake of January’s devastating wildfires led to speculation that she would be challenged from the right again by businessman Rick Caruso, whom she beat handily in 2022. Caruso is also weighing a bid for governor.

Lefty Angelenos shouldn’t hold their breath for a DSA candidate. While the process is member-driven, DSA-LA does not plan at the moment to run anyone for mayor, said Marc Krause, a co-chair of DSA-LA.

Krause said the group’s focus is legislative change, starting with representation on the City Council.

“I think for DSA-LA, our big goal and recent strategy is to try to win a majority on the L.A. City Council,” he said.

DSA-LA’s Mamdani moment came when Hernandez and Soto-Martínez won in 2022, joining Nithya Raman, who had DSA support in her 2020 election.

“It proved to us that what we were aiming to do had some viability to it,” Krause said.

Jurado, also backed by DSA-LA, joined the bloc in 2024.

Those four have helped push the council further to the left in recent years, from passing a $30 minimum wage for tourism industry workers to voting for a budget that sought to slow down police hiring — though those hires may return.

Krause cited a stronger rent stabilization ordinance, higher pay for workers in the city and improved transit infrastructure as some of DSA-LA’s top legislative goals.

To secure those wins, Krause hopes to elect eight DSA-backed city councilmembers or to build a coalition with other elected officials who agree with the policies DSA-LA champions.

And Krause said the movement is growing. The night Mamdani won the primary, DSA-LA gained 50 new members — without even trying.

“We’ll likely be doing more intentional recruitment,” Krause said.

Newsletter

You’re reading the L.A. on the Record newsletter

Sign up to make sense of the often unexplained world of L.A. politics.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

State of play

— INNOCENT IMMIGRANTS: Most of the undocumented immigrants arrested between June 1 and June 10 by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the Los Angeles region had no criminal convictions, according to a Times analysis. The review of data from the Deportation Data Project, a repository of enforcement data at UC Berkeley Law, found that 69% of those arrested had no criminal convictions and 58% had never been charged with a crime.

— RECEIVERSHIP HAS SAILED: A federal judge decided not to put L.A.’s homelessness programs into receivership Tuesday, though he found that the city failed to adhere to the terms of a legal settlement focused on handling the humanitarian crisis on the streets.

— TRUMP SUIT: The city took steps to sue the Trump administration to stop immigration agents from making unconstitutional stops or arrests. The seven councilmembers who signed the letter asking City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto to prioritize “immediate legal action” against the administration argued that the litigation is necessary to prevent racial profiling and unlawful detention of Angelenos.

—UNION DOOZY: L.A. County’s agreement with its biggest labor union will cost more than $2 billion over three years, according to the county chief executive office. The deal with SEIU 721, which represents 55,000 county workers, includes a $5,000 bonus in the first year. Union members still need to ratify the agreement.

—CALIFORNIA VS. TRUMP: The Trump administration may soon be forced to turn over documents related to the activities of the military in Southern California, a federal judge said Tuesday. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had previously allowed Trump to maintain control over the California National Guard.

—SCHOOLS BUDGET: The Los Angeles Board of Education approved an $18.8-billion budget that allows the district to avoid layoffs this year, in part by reducing proposed contributions to a trust fund for retiree health benefits.

QUICK HITS

  • Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature homelessness program went to Marmion Way and North Avenue 57 in Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez’s district, according to the mayor’s office.
  • On the docket for next week: The City Council goes on summer recess beginning Wednesday and will be OOO until July 29.

Stay in touch

That’s it for this week! Send your questions, comments and gossip to [email protected]. Did a friend forward you this email? Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Saturday morning.

Source link

2 Supreme Court Rulings May Spur Pace of Executions : Jurisprudence: U.S. justices refuse to order hearings of Death Row appeals, one of them from California. Rulings again limit federal review of state criminal cases.

The Supreme Court Monday again made it harder for Death Row inmates and other criminals to challenge their convictions in a federal court by claiming their constitutional rights were violated by state courts.

The pair of 6-3 rulings, including one in a California case, could speed the pace of executions around the nation. Many inmates have kept their legal cases–and themselves–alive by contesting their convictions in prolonged battles in federal courts.

In one decision, the justices reinstated a death sentence against a Sonoma County man who in 1975 shot and killed his wife. The second ruling involved a Virginia case.

Together, the rulings send a now-familiar message: Convicted criminals should not routinely get a second chance to contest their cases in a federal court.

About 95% of criminal cases nationwide are handled in the state courts. During the 1960s and ‘70s, however, the Supreme Court encouraged federal judges to closely review state cases to make sure that a defendant’s rights under the U.S. Constitution were protected. Inmates took advantage of this protection by filing a petition of habeas corpus to transfer their cases from a state to a federal court.

But under Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the high court has stressed the opposite. Federal judges should not casually meddle in state court matters, the conservative majority has said.

The California case concerned whether an inmate should get a second chance to contend that he was unfairly induced to incriminate himself.

The defendant in the case, Owen Duane Nunnemaker, was sentenced to death for the 1975 slaying of his estranged wife, Alice. Nunnemaker went to her home in Sebastopol, Calif., shot her at close range and cut a phone cord to prevent her children from calling for help. She died of her wounds.

He later claimed he loved her, but was temporarily deranged. Prosecutors, however, sent a police psychiatrist to interview Nunnemaker, who found him calm and rational. During the trial, the psychiatrist gave damaging testimony against the defendant, who was convicted and sentenced to death.

In his appeal in state courts, Nunnemaker said his Miranda rights were violated because the psychiatrist never warned him his statements could be used against him. The California appellate courts ruled that it was too late for Nunnemaker to raise this Miranda issue. His lawyer should have objected during the trial, the judges said.

Without giving a reason, the California Supreme Court declined to hear his appeal.

But he fared better in the federal courts. Last year, the U.S. 9th Circuit of Court Appeals ruled that Nunnemaker was entitled to a hearing before a federal judge to see whether his constitutional rights had been violated.

The Supreme Court said the 9th Circuit erred in the case, Ylst vs. Nunnemaker, 90-68. The majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, said the federal appeals court should have presumed that the California courts declined to hear Nunnemaker’s appeal for procedural reasons, and the federal courts have no power to second-guess those procedural rules.

In their dissent from the ruling, Justices Harry A. Blackmun, Thurgood Marshall and John Paul Stevens said, “The Court today continues its crusade to erect petty procedural barriers” to raising constitutional claims in the federal courts.

Monday’s other death penalty case ruling was written by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, herself a former state judge. She rejected the claim of a Virginia Death Row inmate that his initial appeal of his conviction still should be considered by that state’s court system, even though his lawyer was three days late in filing it.

The case “concerns the respect the federal courts owe the states,” O’Connor said. Because the state rules forbid the consideration of a late appeal, the federal courts must do the same, she said in Coleman vs. Thompson, 89-7662.

Law enforcement spokesmen praised the rulings for upholding valid criminal convictions. The decisions mean that an old legal challenge “cannot be resuscitated by some sympathetic federal judge,” said Charles Hobson of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in Sacramento. But Rep. Don Edwards (D-San Jose), whose House subcommittee is considering the federal habeas corpus laws, lambasted the court. The decisions “force innocent prisoners to pay the ultimate price for the errors of their lawyers in a state court,” Edwards said.

Source link

California hopes law from bloody era of U.S. history can rein in Trump

California’s fight to rein in President Trump’s deployment of troops to Los Angeles hinges on a 19th century law with a a blood-soaked origin and a name that seems pulled from a Spaghetti Western.

In a pivotal ruling this week, Senior U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer ordered the federal government to hand over evidence to state authorities seeking to prove that the actions of troops in Southern California violate the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which forbids soldiers from enforcing civilian laws.

“How President Trump has used and is using the federalized National Guard and the Marines since deploying them at the beginning of June is plainly relevant to the Posse Comitatus Act,” Breyer wrote Wednesday in his order authorizing “limited expedited discovery.”

The Trump administration objected to the move and has already once gotten a sweeping Breyer ruling that would’ve limited White House authority over the troops overturned by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

This time, the Northern District of California judge made clear he would “only allow discovery as to the Posse Comitatus Act” — signaling what could be the state’s last stand battle to prevent Marines and National Guard forces from participating in immigration enforcement.

The Posse Comitatus Act dates back to the aftermath of the Civil War when the American government faced violent resistance to its efforts to rebuild Southern state governments and enforce federal law following the abolition of slavery.

The text of the law itself is slight, its relevant section barely more than 60 words. Yet when it was enacted, it served as the legal epitaph to Reconstruction — and a preface to Jim Crow.

“It has these very ignoble beginnings,” said Mark P. Nevitt, a law professor at Emory University and one of the country’s foremost experts on the statute.

Before the Civil War, the U.S. military was kept small, in part to avoid the kinds of abuses American colonists suffered under the British.

Authorities back then could marshal a crew of civilians, called a posse comitatus, to assist them, as sometimes happened in California during the Gold Rush. States also had militias that could be called up by the president to pad out the army in wartime.

But law enforcement by the U.S. military was rare and deeply unpopular. Historians have said the use of soldiers to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act — which saw escaped slaves hunted down and returned to the South — helped spark the Civil War.

In recent weeks, the Trump administration has used constitutional maneuvers invented to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act to justify using troops to round up immigrants. Experts said leaders from the antebellum South demanded similar enforcement of the law.

“The South was all for posse comitatus when it came to the Fugitive Slave Act,” said Josh Dubbert, a historian at the Rutherford B. Hayes Presidential Library in Ohio.

But by the time Congress sent federal troops to begin Reconstruction in earnest in 1867, the landscape was very different.

After white rioters razed Black neighborhoods in Memphis and mobs of ex-Confederate soldiers massacred Black demonstrators in New Orleans in the spring of 1866, “most of the South [was] turned into military districts,” said Jacob Calhoun, a professor of American history at Wabash College and an expert on Reconstruction.

“Most scholars, let alone the American public, do not understand the scale of racial violence during Reconstruction,” Calhoun said. “They only send these troops in after unimaginable levels of violence.”

At the polls, Black voters were met by white gangs seeking to prevent them from casting ballots.

For most of American history, the idea of an American army intervening in elections is a nightmare,” Calhoun said. “[Posse Comitatus] is reemphasizing this longstanding belief but for more nefarious purposes.”

The Posse Comitatus language was tucked into an appropriations bill by Southern Democrats after their party won control of Congress in the election of 1876 — “possibly the most violent election in American history,” Calhoun said.

Historians say white lawmakers in the post-war South sought to enshrine their ability to keep Black men from voting by barring federal forces from bolstering the local militias that protected them.

“Once they’re in control of Congress, they want to cut the appropriations for the army,” Dubbert said. “They attach this amendment to [their appropriations bill] which is the Posse Comitatus Act.”

The bill won support from some Republicans, who resented the use of federalized troops to put down the Railroad Strike of 1877 — the first national labor strike in the U.S.

“It is a moment in which white Northern congressmen surrender the South back to ex-Confederates,” Calhoun said. With the Posse Comitatus Act, racial violence becomes the norm.

Yet the statute itself largely vanished from memory, little used for most of the next century.

“The Posse Comitatus Act was forgotten for about 75 years, from after Reconstruction to basically the 1950s, when a defense lawyer made a challenge to a piece of evidence that the Army had obtained,” Nevitt said. “The case law is [all] after World War II.”

Those cases have largely turned on troops who arrest, search, seize or detain civilians — “the normal thing the LAPD does on a daily basis,” Nevitt said. The courts have stood by the bedrock principle that military personnel should not be used to enforce the law against civilians, he said, except in times of rebellion or other extreme scenarios.

“Our nation was forged in large part because the British military was violating the civil rights of colonists in New England,” Nevitt said. “I really can’t think of a more important question than the military’s ability to use force against Americans.”

Yet, the law is full of loopholes, scholars said — notably in relation to use of the National Guard.

Department of Justice has argued Posse Comitatus does not apply to the military’s current actions in Southern California — and even if it did, the soldiers deployed there haven’t violated the law. It also claimed the 9th Circuit decision endorsing Trump’s authority to call up troops rendered the Posse Comitatus issue moot.

Some experts feel California’s case is strong.

“You literally have military roaming the streets of Los Angeles with civilian law enforcement,” said Shilpi Agarwal, legal director of the ACLU of Northern California, “That’s exactly what the [act] is designed to prevent.”

But Nevitt was more doubtful. Even if Breyer ultimately rules that Trump’s troops are violating the law and grants the injunction California is seeking, the 9th Circuit will almost certainly strike it down, he said.

“It’s going to be an uphill battle,” the attorney said. “And if they find a way to get to the Supreme Court, I see the Supreme Court siding with Trump as well.”

Source link

Flaw in Edison equipment in Sylmar sparked major wildfires, lawyers say

Southern California Edison’s admission that its equipment may have ignited the Hurst fire in the San Fernando Valley on Jan. 7 is being seized on by lawyers suing the utility company for another fire in the same area nearly six years earlier.

Both the Saddleridge fire in 2019 and the Hurst fire this year started beneath an Edison high-voltage transmission line in Sylmar. The lawyers say faulty equipment on the line ignited both blazes in the same way.

“The evidence will show that five separate fires ignited at five separate SCE transmission tower bases in the same exact manner as the fire that started the Saddleridge fire,” the lawyers wrote of the Hurst fire in a June 9 filing in Los Angeles Superior Court.

The lawyers said the January wildfire is “further evidence” that a transmission pylon known as Tower 2-5 “is improperly grounded.”

Edison told the state Public Utilities Commission in February that “absent additional evidence, SCE believes its equipment may be associated with the ignition of the Hurst Fire.” But the company denies claims that its equipment sparked the 2019 fire, which tore through Sylmar, Porter Ranch and Granada Hills — all suburbs of Los Angeles — burning 8,799 acres.

“We will continue to focus on facts and evidence — not on preposterous and sensational theories that only serve to harm the real victims,” said Edison spokesman David Eisenhauer. He declined further comment on the case.

The Saddleridge wildfire destroyed or damaged more than 100 homes and other structures, according to Cal Fire, and caused at least one death when resident Aiman El Sabbagh suffered a cardiac arrest.

Edison is being sued by insurance companies, including State Farm and USAA, to recoup the cost of damages paid to their policyholders. Homeowners and other victims are also seeking damages. A jury trial for the consolidated cases is set for Nov. 4.

In their June 9 filing, the plaintiffs’ lawyers also claimed Edison wasn’t transparent with officials looking into the cause of the 2019 fire. One fire official characterized the utility’s action as “deceptive,” the filing said.

Edison discovered a fault on its system at 8:57 p.m. — just three minutes before the blaze at the base of its transmission tower was reported to the Fire Department by Sylmar resident Robert Delgado, according to the court filing.

But Edison didn’t tell the Los Angeles city Fire Department about the fault it recorded, the filing said. Instead the fire department’s investigation team discovered the failure on Edison’s transmission lines through dash cam footage recorded by a motorist driving on the 210 Freeway nearby, the filing said.

When Timothy Halloran, a city Fire Department investigator, went to the location of the flash shown on the motorist’s camera, he found “evidence of a failure on SCE’s equipment,” the filing said.

Halloran said in a deposition that employees of the business located where the evidence was found told him that Edison employees “attempted to purchase” footage from the company’s security camera on the night of the fire, the filing said.

“The video footage shows a large flash emanating from the direction of SCE Transmission Tower 5-2,” the filing said.

Halloran testified in his deposition that he believed Edison was trying to be “deceptive” for attempting to purchase the security camera footage and not reporting the system fault to the Fire Department, the lawyers said.

Halloran didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Edison’s maintenance of its transmission lines is now being scrutinized as it faces dozens of lawsuits from victims of the devastating Eaton fire, which also ignited on Jan. 7.

Videos showed that fire, which killed 18 people and destroyed thousands of homes, starting under a transmission tower in Eaton Canyon. The investigation into the cause of the fire is continuing.

Victims of the 2019 fire say they’ve become disheartened as Edison has repeatedly asked for delays in the court case.

“Many plaintiffs have not yet been able to rebuild their homes” because of the delays, wrote Mara Burnett, a lawyer representing the family of the man who died.

Burnett noted that Aiman El Sabbagh was 54 when he suffered a fatal cardiac arrest during the incident. His children, Tala and Adnan El Sabbagh, “feel they were robbed of things they treasured and worked hard for with no apparent recompense in sight.”

Both the Saddleridge and Hurst fires included a similar chain of events where a failure of equipment on one tower resulted in two or more fires igniting under different towers elsewhere on the line, according to lawyers for the plaintiffs.

Edison designed and constructed the towers that run through Sylmar in 1970. They hold up two transmission lines: the Gould-Sylmar 220 kV circuit and the Eagle Rock-Sylmar 220 kV circuit.

In the case of the Saddleridge fire, investigators from the Los Angeles Fire Department and the California Public Utilities Commission found that at 8:57 pm on Oct. 10, 2019, a Y-shaped steel part holding up a transmission line failed, causing the line to fall on a steel arm.

The failure caused a massive electrical fault, lawyers for the plaintiffs say, that sparked fires at two transmission towers that were more than two miles away.

State and city fire investigators say the Saddleridge fire began under one of those towers. And they found unusual burning at the footing of the other tower, according to a report by an investigator at the utilities commission.

The utilities commission investigator said in the report that he found that Edison had violated five state regulations by not properly maintaining or designing its transmission equipment.

This year’s Hurst fire ignited not far away on Jan. 7 at 10:10 p.m. It also began under one of Edison’s transmission towers.

According to Edison’s Feb. 6 report to the utilities commission, the company found that its hardware failed, resulting in equipment falling to the ground at the base of a tower.

The lawyers for the plaintiffs say that they now have more evidence of the fire’s start. They say that investigators found that the hardware failure set off an event — similar to the 2019 fire — that resulted in five fires at five separate transmission tower bases on the same line.

One of those fires spread in high winds to become the Hurst fire. Officials ordered 44,000 people to evacuate. Air tankers and 300 firefighters contained the fire before it reached any homes.

Source link

MAGA lost in Huntington Beach. That means it can happen anywhere

These are such crazy times that when I found myself desperate to cover some good news amid deportations and Trump overreach, I visited … Huntington Beach?!

MAGA-by-the-Sea? The Orange County city that once elected MMA legend Tito Ortiz to its governing body, which currently includes guys named Chad and Butch? Where Mayor Pat Burns presides over council meetings with a small white bust of Donald Trump in front of him?

The coastal community that’s been a hotbed of neo-Nazi activity for decades? Whose factory setting is whiny gringo rage? Whose former city attorney, Michael Gates, sued California to keep out of his hometown everything from sanctuary state policies to affordable housing mandates and is now a deputy U.S. assistant attorney general for civil rights, which is like putting a butcher in charge of a vegan picnic?

Can that Huntington Beach teach the rest of us a thing — or thirty — not just about how to stand up to despotism, but how to beat it back?

Yep!

Earlier this month, Surf City voters overwhelmingly passed two ballot initiatives addressing their libraries. Measure A nixed a parent review board, created by the City Council, that would have taken the power to select children’s books away from librarians. Measure B barred the privatization of the city’s library system, after the council had considered the idea.

It was a resounding rebuke of H.B.’s conservatives, who had steamrolled over city politics for the past two and a half years and turned what was a 4-3 Democratic council majority three years ago into a 7-0 MAGA supermajority.

Among the pet projects for the new guard was the library, which council members alleged was little better than a smut shop because the young adult section featured books about puberty and LGBTQ+ issues. Earlier this year, the council approved a plaque commemorating the library’s 50th anniversary that will read, “Magical. Alluring. Galvanizing. Adventurous.”

MAGA.

“They went too far, too fast, and it’s not what people signed up for,” said Oscar Rodriguez, an H.B. native.

We were at a private residence near downtown H.B. that was hosting a victory party for the library measures. The line to get in stretched onto the sidewalk. A sign near the door proclaimed, “Not All of Us in H.B. Wear Red Hats.” A banner on the balcony of the two-story home screamed, “Protect Our Kids From Chad,” referring to City Councilmember Chad Williams, who bankrolled much-ridiculed “Protect Children from Porn” signs against Measures A and B.

“Look, Huntington Beach is very conservative, very MAGA — always will be,” Rodriguez continued. We stood in the kitchen as people loaded their plates with salad and pizza. Canvas bags emblazoned with “Protect HB” and the Huntington Beach Pier — the logo for the coalition that pushed for the measures — hung from many shoulders. “But people of all politics were finally disgusted and did something together to stand up.”

A house in Huntington Beach

People line up to enter a house in Huntington Beach that hosted a victory pary for the passage of Measures A and B, which addressed issues with the city’s library.

(John McCoy/For The Times)

“On election night, I was jumping up and down, because it was happening here,” said former Councilmember Natalie Moser, who lost her reelection bid last year and volunteered for Protect HB. “It creates joy and enthusiasm, and I hope others can see what we did and take hope.”

There was no chatter about the ICE raids that were terrorizing swaths of Southern California. A Spotify mix blared “Don’t Fear the Reaper,” AC/DC and the ever-annoying “Hey, Soul Sister” by Train. The crowd of about 90 volunteers was mostly white and boomers. More than a few bore tans so dark that they were browner than me.

We were in Huntington Beach, after all.

And yet these were the folks that fueled Protect HB’s successful campaign. They leaned on social media outreach, door knocking, rallies and a nonpartisan message stressing the common good that was the city library.

Christine Padesky and Cindy Forsthoff staffed tables around the city in the lead-up to Election Day.

“Time and time again, I had people come up to me say, ‘We’re Republican, we’re Christian, we voted for this council, but they’ve gone too far,’” Padesky said.

Forsthoff, a Huntington Beach resident for 36 years, agreed. She had never participated in a political campaign before Measures A and B. “When they [politicians] take such extreme steps, people will come,” she said.

The bro-rock soundtrack faded out and the program began.

“My gosh, we did this!” exclaimed Protect HB co-chair Pat Goodman, who had been checking people in at the door just a few moments earlier.

“I don’t think those neighbors know who we are,” cracked Protect HB co-chair Cathey Ryder, hinting at the uphill battle they faced in a city where registered Republicans outnumber Democrats. “Show them you’re a supporter of good government.”

She led everyone in the cheesy, liberty-minded chant that had inspired volunteers throughout the campaign.

What do we want to do?

Read!

How do we want to read?

Free!

We were in Huntington Beach, after all.

The speeches lasted no more than seven minutes total. The volunteers wanted to enjoy the brisk evening and gather around an outdoor fireplace to make S’mores and enjoy a beer or two. Besides, they deserved to revel in their accomplishment and discuss what was next — not just in Huntington Beach, but how to translate what happened there into a replicable lesson for others outside the city.

The key, according to Dave Rynerson, is to accept political differences and remind everyone that what’s happening in this country — whether on the Huntington Beach City Council or in the White House — isn’t normal.

“As bad as things may seem, you can’t give up,” the retired systems engineer said. “You have to remind people this is our country, our lives, and we need to take care of it together.”

Mayor of Huntington Beach Pat Burns

Mayor of Huntington Beach Pat Burns listens to speakers discuss the city’s plan to make Huntington Beach “a non-sanctuary city for illegal immigration” during the Huntington Beach City Council meeting at the Huntington Beach City Hall in Huntington Beach.

(James Carbone/For the Daily Pilot)

Huntington Beach isn’t going to turn into Berkeley anytime soon. It’s one of the few California cities that has declared itself a nonsanctuary city and fully in support of Trump’s immigration policies. The architect of MAGA’s Huntington Beach takeover, Tony Strickland, was elected to the state senate earlier this year. His acolyte, Councilmember Gracey Van Der Mark, plans to run for assembly next year.

But feeling the happiness at the Protect HB dinner, even if just for an evening, was a much-needed balm at a time when it seems nothing can stop Trump. And meeting regular people like Greg and Carryl Hytopoulos should inspire anyone to get involved.

Married for 50 years and Surf City residents for 44, they own a water pipeline protection service and had never bothered with city politics. But the council’s censorious plans for the library made them “outraged, and this was enough,” said Carryl. “We needed to make an impact, and we couldn’t just sit idly by.”

They outfitted one of their work trucks with large poster boards in favor of Measures A and B and parked it around the city. More crucially, the couple, both Democrats, talked about the issue with their neighbors in Huntington Harbour, an exclusive neighborhood that Trump easily won in 2024.

“When we explained what were the stakes, they listened,” Greg said.

Carryl smiled.

“There’s a quiet majority that, when provoked, can rise up and save the day.”

Source link

Newsom sues Fox News for defamation over story about phone call with Trump

California Gov. Gavin Newsom is suing Fox News for defamation, alleging that the news outlet intentionally manipulated its coverage to give the appearance that the governor lied about a phone call with President Trump.

The governor’s demand for $787 million in punitive damages escalates his aggressive effort to challenge misinformation. The lawsuit, announced Friday, places Newsom at the forefront of the political proxy war between Democrats and Republicans over the press by calling out an outlet that many in his party despise.

“By disregarding basic journalistic ethics in favor of malicious propaganda, Fox continues to play a major role in the further erosion of the bedrock principles of informed representative government,” the suit states. “Setting the record straight and confronting Fox’s dishonest practices are critical to protecting democracy from being overrun by disinformation and lies.”

Newsom, a potential presidential candidate, said he decided to sue in part because Fox failed to change after admitting in a legal settlement two years ago to spreading falsehoods about the 2020 presidential election.

In response to Newsom’s lawsuit, Fox criticized the California governor, accusing him of undercutting the 1st Amendment.

“Gov. Newsom’s transparent publicity stunt is frivolous and designed to chill free speech critical of him. We will defend this case vigorously and look forward to it being dismissed,” Fox News said in a statement Friday morning.

The case stems from comments Trump made about a phone call with Newsom as tensions heated up between the two leaders over immigration raids and the president’s decision to deploy the National Guard to the streets of Los Angeles.

Trump told reporters on June 10 that he spoke with Newsom “a day ago.”

“Called him up to tell him, got to do a better job, he’s doing a bad job,” Trump said. “Causing a lot of death and a lot of potential death.”

Newsom immediately rejected Trump’s timeline on social media.

The governor had already spoken publicly about talking to Trump on the phone late in the night on June 6 in California, which was early June 7 for Trump on the East Coast. Newsom said the National Guard was never discussed during that call. They didn’t talk again, he said.

“There was no call,” Newsom posted on X. “Not even a voicemail. Americans should be alarmed that a President deploying Marines onto our streets doesn’t even know who he’s talking to.”

Newsom’s lawyers allege in the complaint that by making the call seem more recent, Trump could suggest they discussed the deployment of troops to Los Angeles, which they had not.

Trump attempted to fire back at Newsom through Fox and shared a screenshot of his call log with anchor John Roberts. The log showed that a phone call occurred on June 7 and provided no evidence of a call on June 9 as Trump claimed.

“It is impossible to know for certain whether President Trump’s distortion was intentionally deceptive or merely a result of his poor cognitive state, but Fox’s decision to cover up for the President’s false statement cannot be so easily dismissed,” the complaint states.

Newsom’s legal team said Roberts initially misrepresented the situation to viewers “to obscure President Trump’s false statement of fact.”

Then during an evening broadcast on June 10, Fox News host Jesse Watters showed a video of Trump’s comments about the phone call but omitted the president saying that it happened “a day ago.” The edit made it appear that Newsom alleged the two never spoke at all.

“Why would Newsom lie and claim Trump never called him? Why would he do that?” Watters then asked.

A banner at the bottom of the screen during the segment claimed “Gavin lied about Trump’s call.”

Newsom’s lawyers said Fox “willfully distorted the facts” and defamed Newsom to tens of millions of people.

“Fox advanced this lie about Governor Newsom out of a desire to harm him politically,” the complaint states.

Newsom is particularly attuned to his critics on Fox, a conservative-leaning television network that he describes as the epicenter of a right-wing media ecosystem that misleads the public to benefit Trump and his allies. Similar to reports of Trump watching CNN, the governor regularly follows Fox political coverage. He pays close attention to the outlet’s assessment of his leadership.

Fox commentators and opinion hosts, such as Watters, are given a wide berth to express their views, even when they contradict the reporting of its nonpartisan correspondents. They aggressively defend Trump and his policies, while often casting California as a failed state with incompetent leadership.

But Newsom has also benefited from Fox and used his appearances on the network to brandish his image as a brawler for Democrats and his standing as a potential future presidential candidate.

Fox hosted a much talked about debate between Newsom and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in 2023. The California governor also participated in a sit-down interview with Sean Hannity, which drew praise from within and outside of his party.

During a talk on the social media website Substack on Friday, Newsom said he started going on Fox to disrupt propaganda and the network’s narrative about Democrats.

“I have a high threshold for the bulls— on Fox, is the point,” Newsom said. “I wouldn’t do this unless I felt they really did cross the line.”

The amount of the governor’s request for damages was a subtle dig at the outlet.

Fox agreed two years ago to pay Dominion Voting Systems $787 million to drop a lawsuit related to the network’s false claims that voting machines were manipulated to help President Biden win the 2020 election. The news organization settled the case rather than put its executives and on-air talent on the witness stand in a high-profile trial.

Fox faces a similar lawsuit from Smartmatic, a Boca Raton, Fla.-based voting machine company that claims its business had been hurt because of the network’s reporting.

The news outlet has maintained that reporting on Trump’s fraud claims was newsworthy and protected by the 1st Amendment. Barring a settlement, the case could go to trial next year.

In a letter to Fox, Newsom’s lawyers said they will voluntarily dismiss the governor’s suit if the outlet retracts its claims that he lied about speaking to Trump.

“We expect that you will give the same airtime in retracting these falsehoods as you spent presenting and amplifying them,” his lawyers stated. “Further, Mr. Watters and Fox News must issue a formal on-air apology for the lie you have spread about Governor Newsom.”

The governor said any damages he might receive from the lawsuit, punitive or otherwise, would go to charity.

Times staff writer Stephen Battaglio contributed to this report.

Source link

Parents may pull their children from classes that offend their religion, Supreme Court rules

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that parents have a right to opt their schoolchildren out of classes and lessons that offend their religious beliefs.

The 6-3 ruling will have an impact nationwide because it empowers parents who object to books or lessons at school.

“A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses a very real threat of undermining the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill,” said Justice Samuel A. Alito, speaking for the conservative majority.

Parents in Montgomery County, Md., sued over new LGBTQ+ storybooks that were used in kindergarten and elementary school classes.

This clash between progressive educators and religiously conservative parents moved quickly to the Supreme Court after judges refused to intervene.

Alito said the parents were entitled to a preliminary injunction that would require the schools to “notify them in advance” when one of the disputed storybooks would be used in their child’s class.

In ruling for the parents, the court did not say parents have a right to change the lessons and books that were used at school. They could, however, choose to have their children temporarily removed from those classes.

The court’s three liberals dissented.

“Today’s ruling ushers in … new reality, “ Justice Sonia Sotomayor said. “Casting aside long-standing precedent, the Court invents a constitutional right to avoid exposure to subtle themes contrary to the religious principles that parents wish to instill in their children. Given the great diversity of religious beliefs in this country, countless interactions that occur every day in public schools might expose children to messages that conflict with a parent’s religious beliefs. The result will be chaos for this Nation’s public schools.”

Eric Baxter, senior counsel at Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, called the decision “a historic victory for parental rights in Maryland and across America. Kids shouldn’t be forced into conversations about drag queens, Pride parades, or gender transitions without their parents’ permission.”

He appealed the case to the Supreme Court last fall.

“Today, the Court restored common sense and made clear that parents — not government —have the final say in how their children are raised,” he said.

Civil rights advocates condemned the ruling.

“All students deserve to feel safe and welcome in their classrooms. Educators should prepare them for the world we live in and promote curiosity, acceptance, and respect for all people. Yet today’s decision by six justices encourages open discrimination toward LGBTQ+ children and families and favors ignorance and censorship over inclusion,” said Liz King, director for education equity at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

Nearly every state, including Maryland and California, has a law that allows parents to opt out their children from sex education classes.

But Montgomery County officials said this state rule applied to older students and to sex education, but not to reading lessons for elementary school children.

When the new LGBTQ+ storybooks were introduced in the fall of 2022, parents were told their young children could be removed from those lessons. But when “unsustainably high numbers” of children were absent, the school board revoked the opt-out rule.

In reaction, a group of Muslim, Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox parents filed a suit in federal court, seeking an order that would allow their children to be removed from class during the reading lessons.

A federal judge and the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to intervene.

Those judges said the “free exercise” of religion under the 1st Amendment protects people from being forced to change their conduct or their beliefs but it does not shield people from views they oppose.

Lawyers for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty appealed to the Supreme Court.

They said the school board had “mandated new ‘inclusive’ storybooks that celebrate gender transitions, explore Pride parades and introduce same-sex romance between young children.”

At first, parents had been promised they would be notified and could opt their children out when the storybooks were read, they said. But that promise was revoked.

“If parents did not like what was taught to their elementary school kids, their only choice was to send them to private school or to home school,” they said.

Source link