challenging

As City Section 11-man football coaches prepare for the official start of practices on Monday, there’s a noticeable change under way.

They’re not fighting one another. Rather, they are uniting as a group, understanding and embracing their similar challenges while trying to create environments to keep the players and their parents invested in the future.

They still gripe and complain, but it’s part of working in the Los Angeles Unified School District. They are sacrificing, many as walk-on coaches, for “little” victories that inspire them to keep coaching.

Whether they realize it or not, this is the only way forward — helping kids develop as players and students first. Worry about on-field wins and losses later.

All they want is a fair and equitable playing field, though sometimes even that can’t be achieved.

Coaches have had to put themselves out on a limb. There was courage displayed last season when the head coaches at San Pedro, Gardena, Carson and Banning decided to forfeit games against Narbonne while demanding an investigation by LAUSD into alleged rule violations. Families were not happy at losing the opportunity to play games. Purists who believe forfeiting is never acceptable were aghast. Coaches involved received strong criticism by some.

It forced an investigation, resulting in players being declared ineligible and Narbonne vacating its City title and being declared ineligible for the 2025, 2026 and 2027 playoffs.

Every coach who signed on to the protest ended up resigning except for San Pedro’s Corey Walsh. They helped clean up a mess that shouldn’t had been allowed to fester.

When City Section coaches gathered for their annual meeting last month to discuss the season ahead, there were many hugs, handshakes and discussions of identical challenges (academic eligibility, increasing roster numbers, finding assistant coaches, concerns about federal immigration raids). The warmth was real because many of the older coaches have been mentors. Hamilton’s Elijah Asante used to coach L.A. Jordan first-year coach James Boyd.

So many families have left. The days when Carson, Banning, Dorsey and Crenshaw could compete against and beat the best of the Southern Section teams are gone. Remember when Crenshaw played De La Salle in the CIF Open Division state championship game in 2009? Coach Robert Garrett is still around with 290 career victories, but the Cougars’ roster hovers around 25 players with no JV team.

It doesn’t mean the former powers can’t rise again as champions within the City Section. Those who have stayed, from coaches to players, deserve praise for taking on an adventure that can be daunting. There are good, loyal people determined to help along the way.

New facilities have opened. All-weather fields and new grass fields are multiplying. Garfield, Roosevelt and Hamilton debut new stadiums this fall. A strong collection of City Section quarterbacks are ready to let the ball fly, from Eagle Rock’s Liam Pasten to Carson’s Chris Fields. There is no certain dominant team, though the usual contenders — Birmingham, Carson, San Pedro — are teams to watch. So far, 71 schools are playing 11-man football.

There’s a story line certain to provide inspiration — Palisades High trying to rise again after its campus was damaged during the Palisades fire. Even though its football field was largely untouched, the team is starting the season not allowed to play on the field and will be playing at Santa Monica College. Students have yet to return to the campus. TV cameras will be out en force to capture the drama if the Dolphins can put together a dream season.

Southern Section teams also begin practices on Monday. If you think you’re watching the movie “Groundhog Day,” you are correct. Every Division 1 title since 2016 has been won by Mater Dei or St. John Bosco. It’s almost certain to happen again in 2025.

It doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be some outstanding games in the Southern Section, starting with the Aug. 22 matchup of Santa Margarita and new coach Carson Palmer taking on Mission Viejo at Trabuco Hills.

There’s always excitement and intrigue when the pads first come on next week. Teaching kids who have never worn shoulder pads is both comedy and memorable. It will be just one more responsibility for City Section coaches who receive a $5,622 stipend over four months and are expected to be Superman every day.

To all coaches, thank you for your sacrifice and for providing teenagers the guidance, discipline and structure that will be needed when their playing careers are finished.

Unforgivable is a new drama from Time writer Jimmy McGovern and has a stellar cast including Anna Friel and Line of Duty’s Anna Maxwell Martin

The BBC has unveiled the release date for a chilling new drama featuring a young actor from Adolescence and a star from Line of Duty.

Unforgivable is a gripping original drama penned by Time’s scriptwriter Jimmy McGovern, and much like the Sean Bean and Stephen Graham led series Time, it’s set within and revolves around the UK prison system.

The plot centres on the fictional Mitchell family, who are left grappling with the devastating aftermath of an act of abuse committed by one of their own.

After serving two years of his prison sentence, Joe (portrayed by Bobby Schofield) finds himself in an institution that provides him with a home and rehabilitation post-release.

He embarks on therapy sessions in an attempt to comprehend what drove him to commit such a horrific crime, and to confront the repercussions of his actions, reports the Liverpool Echo.

The recently released trailer by the BBC depicts Joe adjusting to life after prison, while his family continue to question the reasons behind his abusive behaviour.

His sister Anne (played by Emmy-award winner Anna Friel) is coping with the impact his crime has had on her family, including her sons Tom (Adolescence actor Austin Haynes) and Peter (Fin McParland), whilst her father Brian (David Threlfall) is livid at the idea of her having been in contact with Joe.

Meanwhile, Line of Duty actress Anna Maxwell Martin portrays a former nun who provides Joe with therapy at the institution as part of his rehabilitation.

The upcoming drama Unforgivable has created quite a buzz with the BBC hinting that it’s all about the widespread impact of abuse and the struggle to move beyond its devastation.

“The drama examines the extensive ripple effect of abuse from multiple perspectives and how those involved can try to move forwards in the midst of the devastation,” the corporation teased ahead of the show’s anticipated release.

It has now been confirmed that Unforgivable will debut in full on BBC iPlayer at 6am on Thursday 24th July, with the episode airing later that day on BBC Two.

Reacting to the newly-published trailer, as it was shared by Marcella actress Anna on Instagram, one fan wrote: “Can’t wait – looks so good.”

Another posted: “Ohhhhhhhh wow – I feel a binge watch coming up!!!!!!”

“Gonna be seated to watch this religiously. Congrats on your new project,” a third said.

“It’s McGovern so looks so gripping already, thanks for sharing,” someone else wrote.

Set against the backdrop of Liverpool, where it was filmed, the cast is further bolstered with Mark Womack, Paddy Rowan, and Phina Oruche taking up pivotal supporting roles.

Lindsay Salt, Director of BBC Drama, previously shared an insight into what viewers can expect from the drama, saying: “Jimmy McGovern is one of our greatest dramatists, and a master at writing about today’s world.

“His new film sensitively examines the pain of abuse and how it affects not only the victim but ripples out across the whole family. To see it brought to the screen with such a high calibre cast and creative team is further testament to the quality of Jimmy’s writing.”

Writer Jimmy McGovern also said: “I can’t believe the cast and crew that have been assembled for this production. It’s a challenging film, yes, but I can’t wait for it to be shown.”

Colin McKeown, executive producer for LA Productions added: “This is a profoundly challenging and sensitive subject, tackled with intelligence and care by Jimmy McGovern. It’s a privilege to be working with him again following the success of our previous collaborations on single dramas: Common, Care, Reg and Anthony.”

Unforgivable will be available to watch on BBC iPlayer at 6am on Thursday 24th July, and air on BBC Two at 9pm that evening.

Washington, DC – The United States Supreme Court has dealt a major blow to those challenging Donald Trump’s use of presidential power, in what the president and his allies have hailed as a major victory.

In its decision on Friday, the nine-member panel weighed whether courts could block an executive order on birthright citizenship.

The court did not rule directly on the president’s order, which would limit citizenship for US-born children based on their parents’ immigration status.

But in a six-to-three ruling, the court’s conservative supermajority did severely curtail the ability of judges to issue so-called universal injunctions: blanket bans on presidential actions stemming from legal challenges.

The court’s move, according to Allen Orr, the former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), is nothing short of “explosive”.

“For lawyers and people who practice law, this is a drastic change from the way we’ve had courts run in the past,” he told Al Jazeera. “It’s weakening the judiciary yet again, as a balancing act [against the executive branch].”

Friday’s ruling lifts the nationwide block on Trump’s executive order that seeks to redefine birthright citizenship, which generally allows those born on US soil to be recognised as American citizens.

However, Trump’s order, signed just hours after he took office for a second term on January 20, would restrict citizenship for individuals born to undocumented parents in the US.

That “opens the door to partial enforcement” of Trump’s order, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), one of several groups that have challenged the attempted policy.

That is, at least until the Supreme Court makes a determination on whether birthright citizenship is indeed protected by the US Constitution, as proponents – and the court’s own precedents – have long maintained.

If no further action is taken, in theory, the order could be blocked in the handful of states where judges have already issued injunctions related to at least 10 individual lawsuits. But it could go into effect in dozens of other states where judges have issued no such injunction.

The Supreme Court’s ruling says Trump’s order will not be enforceable for at least 30 days.

But Leon Fresco – a former deputy assistant attorney general who oversaw immigration at the Justice Department under President Barack Obama – warned that, after that 30-day period, there could be grave consequences for the newborn children of immigrants.

“If there isn’t an injunction in your jurisdiction that prevents the executive order from being implemented and you’re born to a parent without a status that confers you citizenship, then the government could deny you either a passport, if you apply for a passport, or a Social Security number,” he told Al Jazeera.

Class action challenge

The decision on Friday does not completely remove the possibility of a judge issuing a nationwide injunction to an executive order. Legal experts say it just severely restricts the avenues.

Prior to the decision, groups and individuals could launch a panoply of legal challenges in federal courts across the country, any of which could result in nationwide injunctions.

Now, a judge can only issue a blanket pause in response to a class action lawsuit, which is a complaint brought on behalf of an entire “class” of people. The process is typically more complex, time-consuming and costly.

The Supreme Court’s majority opinion, Fresco explained, also clarified that only one nationwide class action lawsuit can represent a specific challenge.

“There wouldn’t be this ability, which happens now, where plaintiffs can file cases in five or six different courts, in hopes of getting one judge in any of those courts to issue a nationwide injunction,” he said.

“With the class action, you’ll only have the one time to win,” he added. “If you lost, you’d have to hope that the appellate court changed it, or that the Supreme Court changed it.”

Class action lawsuits also have stringent requirements for who can participate. A judge must agree that all plaintiffs are pursuing the same case and that there are no substantial differences in their claims.

Shortly after Friday’s ruling, the plaintiff, CASA Inc, an immigration advocacy group, swiftly refiled its legal challenge against Trump’s birthright citizenship order. Now, it is pursuing the case as a class action lawsuit.

Critics, meanwhile, took aim at the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority. Even Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal judge on the nine-member panel, criticised her colleagues for ruling on national injunctions but not on Trump’s executive order, which she called blatantly unconstitutional.

“The majority ignores entirely whether the President’s Executive Order is constitutional, instead focusing only on the question whether federal courts have the equitable authority to issue universal injunctions,” Sotomayor wrote.

“Yet the Order’s patent unlawfulness reveals the gravity of the majority’s error.”

Absent a class action lawsuit, individuals and groups will be forced to launch their own lawsuits to get individual reprieves from potentially illegal presidential orders.

That’s because the conservative supermajority ruled that court injunctions in most cases should only apply to the plaintiffs in the lawsuit at hand.

In a post on the social media platform X, Democratic Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz wrote that the Supreme Court’s decision allows Trump to “rip away birthright citizenship, forcing individuals to file burdensome lawsuits to get it back”.

Wider implications

But Friday’s decision not only restricts who is protected by a given court injunction, it also has sway over how much the judicial branch of government can continue to serve as a bulwark against the executive branch.

Critics of universal injunctions have long accused federal judges of overstepping their authority by blocking presidential action.

Among those celebrating Friday’s decision was Senator Chuck Grassley, who has spearheaded legislation on the issue.

In a statement, he called such injunctions an “unconstitutional affront to our nation’s system of checks and balances” that “ought to be stopped for good”.

Proponents, however, say the ability for judges to issue swift, wide-reaching pauses on controversial policies is needed to safeguard against presidential overreach.

Many see Trump as taking the expansion of presidential powers to a new level during his second term.

Since returning to office for a second term, Trump has issued 164 executive orders, surpassing the 162 issued by former President Joe Biden during his entire presidency. That number – for a span of about five months – is rapidly approaching the total for Trump’s entire first term: 220.

Meanwhile, federal judges issued at least 25 national injunctions to Trump’s orders during his first 100 days in office, some of which paused cuts to federal funding, attacks on diversity initiatives and overhauls to the US immigration systems.

Some of those court cases will likely be re-challenged in light of the latest ruling, experts said.

In a post on X, Senator Chris Coons, a Democrat, warned the courts ruling “will only embolden Trump and his dismantling of our federal government”.

“It will create an unworkable patchwork of laws that shift depending on who you are or what state you’re in.”

Orr, the former law association president, agreed with that assessment.

“This decision does not build consistency across the United States at a time when people need these standards,” he said. “People do not have time or money to wait to have these issues resolved.”

Barcelona sporting director Deco denies the club have financial problems and says they do not need to sell players – despite La Liga’s restrictive financial controls.

Deco, 47, has overseen a revival of Barcelona since his appointment in 2023, culminating in a domestic treble while also reaching the semi-finals of the Champions League.

The Catalans have renewed the contracts of superstar teenager Lamine Yamal, Raphinha and manager Hansi Flick, while they were cleared by Spain’s National Sports Council (CSD) to register midfielder Dani Olmo amid a dispute with La Liga.

When asked whether the world should see Barcelona as a well-run club in 2025, Deco told BBC Sport: “Barcelona is my club, I love Barcelona. I saw what happened from the outside and always thought I could help put Barca at the same high level.

“I knew it would be difficult when I joined with the financial rules – it is not a financial problem, but the financial fair play rules in Spain are more difficult than the Premier League and in other countries.

“It is a problem for a lot of clubs, you just hear about Barca because we are a big club. You need to work with it, see how you can improve the team and the combination of La Masia [academy] players and experienced players has been important.”

The former Portugal midfielder, who played for the Catalans – as well as Chelsea and Porto – stresses Barcelona are happy working with La Liga but have faith the rules will continue to improve.

Even if they do not, Barcelona are excited to have “one of the biggest contracts in history” with Nike, and the newly renovated 100,000-seater Nou Camp will be the biggest stadium in Europe and improve revenues.

He insists Barcelona will “not sell our best players”, adding the team’s recent success means they can “grow with many of the same players”. But he says they are in looking for “two, three or four signings”, without needing to enter the market “like crazy” thanks to the stability at the core of the team.

When asked if it includes the option of signing Manchester United’s Marcus Rashford, thought to be available for £40m, or Liverpool’s Luis Diaz, he added: “We have been focusing on renewing contracts, after that, we’ll discuss players to come.

“Of course, these two players, like you mentioned, they are good but have contracts in their clubs, so we won’t speak because it’s not fair. But when you decide to go to the market, for sure, we find some names. In my opinion, we don’t need to bring many players.”

He added: “When I speak with the agents of the players, everyone wants to come or stay. So this is important. The image of the club is still good. We are proud because Barcelona is still such a big club, and the way we are playing football makes players want to come.”

Deco is aware of the constant threat of Real Madrid, who will look to improve under new head coach Xabi Alonso.

They have also agreed deals for right-back Trent Alexander-Arnold, who will leave Liverpool, and Bournemouth centre-back Dean Huijsen. Benfica left-back Alvaro Carreras is understood to be next on the club’s shortlist.

“Next season is not going to be easy, because I know that first Real Madrid has a lot of top players,” he said. “In my opinion they have a big team. They have a lot of fantastic players. Of course they want to improve.

“It’s very important to have a strong Madrid. It’s very important to have strong players, top players, players that the people want to see. I think Madrid has these kinds of players, like us.

“Now it’s important to keep the top players in La Liga. So for us it’s important that Madrid are strong, that Atletico is strong, and we need to be there.”

May 25 (UPI) — Federal officials are considering removing undocumented immigrants in California custody as an attempt to undermine the state’s sanctuary law.

“Operation Guardian Angel” is intended to “neutralize” sanctuary state rules, U.S. Atty. Bill Essaylie, the top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles explained.

The program employs federal resources at county jails and state prisons — the places where federal officials say the sanctuary law impedes the work of immigration agents to take custody.

“These laws effectively render federal immigration detainers meaningless,” Essaylie said. “While California may be presently disregarding detainers, it cannot ignore federal arrest warrants.”

An immigration detainer allows local law enforcement agencies to detain people for up to 48 hours beyond their scheduled release to allow for a transfer to federal custody.

Despite federal efforts to weaken the sanctuary law, local officials have said they will continue to enforce it and protect immigrants whom “Operation Guardian Angel” targets.

“This is just another scare tactic to get us to follow this authoritarian agenda, but it’s not going to work,” Los Angeles City Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martinez said.

Essaylie’s office identifies people with criminal records who have been deported and charges them with a federal crime if they re-enter the United States.

California officials have said they already cooperate with federal agents with regards to undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes.