law

“I am not a crook,” President Nixon said in 1973.

“I’m not a dictator,” President Trump insisted on Monday.

And with that, another famously false presidential proclamation entered the annals of memorable statements no president should ever feel compelled to make.

It took months more for Nixon’s crimes to force him to resign in 1974 ahead of his all-but-certain removal by Congress. But a half-century later, Trump is unabashedly showing every day that he really does aspire to be a dictator. Unlike Nixon, he doesn’t have to fear a supposedly coequal Congress: It’s run by slavish fellow Republicans who’ve forfeited their constitutional powers over spending, tariffs, appointments and more. Lower courts have checked Trump’s lawlessness, but a too-deferential Supreme Court gets the last word and empowers him more than not.

Americans are indeed in proverbial uncharted waters. Four months ago, conservative columnist David Brooks of the New York Times wrote — uncharacteristically for a self-described “mild” guy — “It’s time for a comprehensive national civic uprising.” It’s now past time.

Perhaps more troubling than Trump’s “not a dictator” comment was a related one that he made on Monday and reiterated on Tuesday during a three-hour televised Cabinet praise meeting (don’t these folks have jobs?). “A lot of people are saying maybe we like a dictator,” he said. Alas, for once Trump isn’t wrong. MAGA Republicans are loyal to the man, not the party, and give Trump the sort of support no president in memory has enjoyed.

A poll from the independent Public Religion Research Institute earlier this year showed that a majority of Americans — 52% — agreed that Trump is a “dangerous dictator whose power should be limited before he destroys American democracy.” Those who disagreed were overwhelmingly Republicans, 81% of whom said Trump “should be given the power he needs.” Americans’ split on this fundamental question shows the extent to which Trump has cleaved a country founded and long-flourishing on checks and balances and the rule of law, not men.

That Trump would explicitly address the dictator issue this week reflects just how head-spinningly fast his dictatorial actions have been coming at us.

The militarization of the nation’s capital continues, reinforced with National Guard units from six red states, on trumped-up claims of a crime emergency. Trump served notice in recent days that the thousands of troops and federal agents will remain on Washington’s streets indefinitely despite a federal law setting a 30-day limit — “We’re not playing games,” he told troops on Friday — and that Chicago, Baltimore, New York and perhaps San Francisco are next.

In all cases, as with Los Angeles, Il Duce is acting over the objections of elected officials. But who cares about stinking elections? Trump warned on Friday from his gilded Oval Office that Washington’s thrice-elected Mayor Muriel Bowser “better get her act straight or she won’t be mayor very long, because we’ll take it over with the federal government.” And after Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, another Democrat, slammed Trump for his threats, El Presidente replied that he has “the right to do anything I want to do.”

This is scary stuff, and it’s being normalized by the sheer firehose nature of Trump’s outrages and by the capitulation of his Cabinet, Congress, corporations and rightwing media. That’s why the remaining citizenry must take a stand, literally.

Trump’s sycophants atop the Pentagon and intelligence agencies, the equally unfit Pete Hegseth and Tulsi Gabbard, continued their purge of senior military officials and intelligence experts whose loyalties to Trump are suspect. And on Friday, the FBI raided the home of former Trump advisor John Bolton, in a chilling signal to other critics.

In a first for a president, Trump on Tuesday tried to fire a member of the independent Federal Reserve board, Biden appointee Lisa D. Cook, in apparent violation of federal law aiming to protect the Fed against just such political interference. The Fed’s independence has been central to the United States’ role as the globe’s preeminent economic power; investors worldwide believe the central bank won’t act on a president’s whims. But Trump is determined to cement a majority that will deeply cut interest rates, inflation be damned. Cook is suing to keep her job, setting up a Fed-backed showdown likely headed to the Supreme Court. Despite its partiality to a president’s power over independent federal agencies, the court has repeatedly suggested that the Fed is an exception. Let’s hope.

Trump, who regularly assails Democrats as socialists and communists, now boasts of compelling private corporations to give the government a stake. Speaking on Monday about a new deal in which the beleaguered head of chipmaker Intel agreed to give the government a 10% stake, Trump declared, “I hope I have many more cases like it.” And yet we get more crickets from Republicans who profess to be the party of free enterprise and free markets.

The president’s campaign against federal judges who oppose him continues as well. On Tuesday it was one of his own appointees, U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen, who tossed Trump’s lawsuit against the entire federal judiciary in Maryland. To accept the president’s suit, Cullen wrote, would violate precedent, constitutional tradition and the rule of law.

Alas, such violations pretty much sum up Trump’s record so far.

He’s trying to rewrite history at the Smithsonian Institution, including whitewashing slavery, and dictating to law firms, universities and state legislatures. On Tuesday, Trump had Republican state legislators from Indiana to the White House to press them to join those in Texas and other red states who are, on his orders, redrawing House districts expressly so Democrats don’t win control of Congress in next year’s midterm elections.

Amid all this, the New Yorker was out with an exhaustive review of Trump’s finances that conservatively concluded that he’s already profited on the presidency by $3.4 billion. If he’s not careful, Trump won’t only be denying he’s a dictator; he’ll be echoing Nixon on the crook rap.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes

The Los Angeles City Council stopped short on Wednesday of giving another $5 million to a law firm hired to defend the city in a long running homelessness case, sending the question to a committee for additional vetting.

City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto had asked the council to provide a nearly sixfold increase in her office’s contract with Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, taking the cost up to $5.9 million.

The council voted in May to provide Gibson Dunn $900,000 for up to three years of work. Over the following three months, the law firm blew way past that amount, racking up $3.2 million in bills.

“Obviously, we are not happy, and not ready to pay that bill that we didn’t bargain for,” said Councilmember Bob Blumenfield. “We were supposed to have been notified when they were exceeding that amount. It’s written in the contract that we were supposed to be notified at different levels. We were not notified.”

On Wednesday, after meeting behind closed doors for more than 90 minutes, the council sent Feldstein Soto’s request to the powerful budget committee for more review.

Blumenfield, who sits on that committee, did not offer a timeline for taking up Feldstein Soto’s request. However, he said he wants the city attorney to go back to Gibson Dunn to ensure that “taxpayers are better served.”

The L.A. Alliance sued in 2020, saying the city was doing too little to move people homeless people indoors and address the concentration of encampments in Skid Row and elsewhere. The group eventually reached a settlement with the city that required, among other things, the construction of homeless housing beds and the removal of encampments.

As part of the settlement, the city must provide 12,915 homeless beds or other housing opportunities, such as rental vouchers, by June 2027. L.A. also must remove 9,800 homeless encampments, such as tents or recreational vehicles, by June 2026.

Lawyers for the L.A. Alliance contend the city has repeatedly fallen short of the obligations spelled out in the settlement. In May, the group attempted to persuade U.S. Dist. Judge David O. Carter to seize control over the city’s homeless initiatives and turn them over to a third-party receiver.

Gibson Dunn waged an aggressive defense of the city’s actions, issuing hundreds of objections and working to undermine key witness testimony.

Carter ultimately rejected the request to appoint a receiver, but also concluded that the city had breached the settlement agreement in several ways.

Feldstein Soto did not immediately comment on the council’s action. She has previously praised the law firm, saying through a spokesperson that it “delivered exceptional results and seamless representation.”

The city is now planning to appeal portions of the judge’s order. Feldstein Soto said some of the additional $5 million would go toward work on that appeal, with Gibson Dunn representing the city through June 2027, according to a confidential memo reviewed by The Times.

In her memo, Feldstein Soto commended Gibson Dunn for preserving the city’s control over its homeless programs and preventing several elected officials from being ordered to testify.

Blumenfield also offered praise for Gibson Dunn, saying he appreciates the firm’s “good work for the city.” Nevertheless, he also wants Feldstein Soto to look for ways of cutting costs.

“Sending it to committee sends a message — which is, we don’t like what was put before us for lots of reasons,” he said.

Matthew Umhofer, an attorney representing the L.A. Alliance, said after the meeting that he was “heartened that the city didn’t give this misadventure a blank check.”

“I’m hopeful the City Council committee scrutinizes this,” he said, “and asks the important question of whether spending $6 million on an outside firm to avoid accountability is a good use of taxpayer funds.”

The high-powered law firm that racked up big bills working to keep the city of Los Angeles from losing control over its homeless programs is now looking to increase its contract by $5 million.

City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto has asked the City Council to increase the city’s contract with Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP to $5.9 million, up from the $900,000 approved three months ago, according to a confidential memo she sent to council members.

Gibson Dunn has been defending the city since mid-May in a lawsuit filed by the nonprofit Alliance for L.A. Human Rights, which resulted in a settlement agreement requiring the construction of new homeless housing and the removal of street encampments. The L.A. Alliance alleges that the city has repeatedly violated the agreement.

The Times reported last month that Gibson Dunn billed the city $1.8 million for about two weeks of work, with 15 attorneys charging $1,295 per hour and others charging lower amounts.

By Aug. 8, Gibson Dunn had racked up $3.2 million in billings in the case, according to the city attorney’s memo, a copy of which was reviewed by The Times. Those invoices arrived during a difficult financial period for the city, caused in part by a surge in expensive legal payouts.

Much of the firm’s work was focused on its preparation for, and participation in, a lengthy hearing before a federal judge who was weighing the Alliance’s request to hand control over the city’s homeless initiatives to a third party.

Gibson Dunn was retained by the city one week before the hearing, which lasted seven court days, at eight or more hours per day.

“The evidentiary hearing was more extensive than anticipated, with the plaintiffs calling more than a dozen witnesses and seeking to compel City officials to testify,” Feldstein Soto wrote in her memo.

Feldstein Soto’s office did not immediately respond to inquiries from The Times. But the city attorney has been outspoken in defending Gibson Dunn’s work, saying the firm kept the city’s homeless initiatives from being turned over to a receiver — a move that would have stripped authority from Bass and the City Council.

Gibson Dunn also prevented several elected officials — a group that includes Bass — from having to take the stand, Feldstein Soto said in her memo.

City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez said she would vote against a request to spend another $5 million on Gibson Dunn. That money would be better spent on ensuring the city complies with its legal obligations in the case, which include the construction of 12,915 homeless beds and the removal of 9,800 encampments, she said.

Rodriguez, who also voted against the initial round of funding for Gibson Dunn, said $5 million would be enough to cover “time limited” housing subsidies for at least 500 households in her northeast San Fernando Valley district for an entire year.

“At the end of the day, we’re here to house people,” she said. “So let’s spend the resources housing them, rather than being in a protracted legal battle.”

Matthew Umhofer, an attorney who represents the L.A. Alliance, called the request for nearly $6 million “ludicrous,” saying the city should focus on compliance with the settlement agreement.

“Gibson is a very good firm. Lawyers cost money. I get it,” he said. “But the city has hundreds of capable lawyers, and the notion that they need to spend this kind of money to prevent a court from holding them to their obligations and their promises, it raises real questions about the decision-making in the city on this issue.”

“For a city that claims to be in fiscal crisis, this is nonsense,” Umhofer added.

In her memo, Feldstein Soto said the additional $5 million would cover Gibson Dunn’s work in the case through June 2027, when the city’s legal settlement with the L.A. Alliance is set to expire.

During that period, Gibson Dunn would appeal an order by U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, arguing that the judge “reinterpreted” some of the city’s obligations under the settlement agreement, Feldstein Soto said in her memo. The law firm would also seek to “reform” the settlement agreement, Feldstein Soto said.

Theane Evangelis, an attorney with Gibson Dunn who led the team assigned to the L.A. Alliance case, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Her firm has played a huge role in redefining the way cities are permitted to address homelessness.

Representing Grants Pass, Ore., the firm secured a landmark ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court upholding laws that prohibit homeless people from camping in public spaces.

The firm brought a new, more pugnacious approach to the L.A. Alliance case, issuing hundreds of objections throughout the seven-day hearing and working to undermine the credibility of key witnesses.

A month later, Carter issued a 62-page order declining to turn L.A.’s homeless programs over to a third party. However, he also found that the city had failed to comply with the settlement agreement.

Feldstein Soto said the additional $5 million would allow the firm to carry out its work through June 2027, when the Alliance settlement is scheduled to expire.

Gibson Dunn’s legal team would continue to pursue the city’s appeal while also helping to produce the quarterly reports that are required by the settlement agreement.

I Fought The Law is a new ITV drama based on the true story of Ann Ming’s long campaign to overturn the 800-year-old British double jeopardy law following the murder of her daughter

The upcoming ITV drama, I Fought The Law, tells the gripping story of Ann Ming’s relentless 17-year campaign to overturn Britain’s ancient double jeopardy law after her daughter’s murder.

Ann and her husband Charlie tirelessly fought to change the law that prohibited individuals from being tried twice for the same crime, following the tragic death of their daughter Julie in 1989.

Julie’s mutilated body was discovered by Ann hidden beneath the bath in her Billingham home, sparking her unwavering determination to bring the murderer to justice.

In 2006, Billy Dunlop was finally sentenced to life imprisonment for Julie’s murder. He had previously faced trial twice in 1991, but due to two juries failing to reach verdicts, he had been set free.

Here’s everything you need to know about the series, including its release date, cast, and number of episodes.

READ MORE: Sheridan Smith in tears as mum she plays in ITV drama makes emotional on-air confessionREAD MORE: ITV star Daniel York Loh devastated after finding brother dead from heroin overdose

When does I Fought The Law premiere?

I Fought The Law is set to air on ITV on Sunday, 31 August at 9pm.

Each episode will run for an hour, ending at 10pm, and will also be available for viewing on ITVX.

The episodes will be broadcast on Sundays and Mondays.

How many episodes does I Fought The Law have?

The series consists of four episodes, which will air on the following dates:.

Episode 1 – 31 August.

Episode 2 – 1 September.

Episode 3 – 7 September.

Episode 4 – 8 September.

The first episode’s synopsis reads: “In 1989, Ann Ming is distraught when her 22-year-old daughter Julie Hogg goes missing, but the police shrug off her concerns, suggesting that she must have fled to London to reunite with her estranged husband.

“Knowing in her heart that Julie would never leave her brother Kevin behind, Ann uncovers a mother’s worst nightmare.”

Who is in the cast of I Fought The Law?

Sheridan Smith stars as Ann Ming, and she is a 44 year old English actress and singer known for her roles in The Royle Family and Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps.

Daniel York Loh plays Charlie Ming, with the actor having previously starred in Jade Dragon and Strangers.

Victoria Wyant stars as Julie Hogg, and the up-and-coming actress has previously starred in Foundation.

Enzo Cilenti plays DS Mark Braithwaite and he is known for his roles in The Last Tycoon, Domina and The Serpent Queen.

Other stars include Marlowe Chan-Reeves, Olivia Ng, Jake Davies, Kent Riley, Jack James Ryan, Andrew Lancel, Rufus Jones, Aimée Kelly, Bryony Corrigan and Buddy Wignall-Ho.

I Fought The Law is coming to ITV on August 31

Aug. 23 (UPI) — The Trump administration is deploying up to 1,700 National Guard troops to 19 states to assist with Immigration and Customs Enforcement activities.

The troops will assist with logistical support, transportation, case management and clerical services at facilities that are processing “illegal migrants,” the Defense Department told Fox News.

“The in-and-out processing may include personal data collection, fingerprinting, DNA swabbing and photographing of personnel in ICE custody,” a Pentagon spokesperson said in a prepared statement.

The troops will be deployed from August through mid-November amid a surge in ICE enforcement activities as the Trump administration works to meet its goal of at least 30,000 monthly deportations.

A July status change of Marine Corps personnel to National Guard status will support the 19-state deployment, which will not include law enforcement activities, according to News Nation.

The deployments will occur in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, SouthCarolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming, according to the Defense Department.

Unrelated to anti-violent crime deployments

The pending deployments are not related to the use of National Guard troops to quell violent crime in the nation’s capital or other cities, such as Chicago, according to the White House.

President Donald Trump has said the National Guard could be deployed to Chicago, New York and other cities to address violent crime after calling the Washington deployment a success.

The president deployed about 2,000 National Guard troops to the capital earlier this month, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth this week authorized them to carry weapons.

The U.S. Marshals Service will approve the troops carrying sidearms, which will be 9mm Sig Sauer M17 pistols for personal protection.

New Mexico National Guard deployed to address crime

Also deploying National Guard troops to quell crime is New Mexico Gov. Michelle Grisham.

Grisham, a Democrat, recently announced a state of emergency due to crime in parts of the state and already deployed up to 70 National Guard troops in Albuquerque.

She also has issued states of emergency in Rio Arriba County, the city of Espanola and pueblos in the area after being asked to do so by respective local governments, CNN reported.

Grisham cited a fentanyl epidemic and violent crime among juveniles as “requiring immediate intervention” and in a news release said Rio Arriba County has the state’s highest rate of overdose deaths.

Local law enforcement and other resources are overwhelmed by a surge in drug trafficking, violent crime and other threats to public safety, she said.

Ron Howard’s new film “Eden” is a true story about disenchanted Europeans, who, in the 1930s, escaped from their society and decamped on a lonely rock in the Galapagos, only to see their handmade utopia devolve into petty power struggles and murder. It’s also lurid proof that Charles Darwin missed out on the truly juicy survival-of-the-fittest action by about a hundred years.

This is certainly unusual material for a mainstream stalwart like Howard, who knows his way around heroic problem-solving narratives (“Apollo 13,” the Thai cave rescue movie “Thirteen Lives”). But in screenwriter Noah Pink’s melodramatic imagining of incidents both well-documented and mysterious, one can see this Hollywood veteran on a mission to loosen the shackles of his reputation and have some nasty, brutish fun. To wit: A perma-sneering Jude Law greets intruders naked; a wild-eyed Ana de Armas insults and tries to seduce everyone; Vanessa Kirby lets foreplay include the pulling of her diseased tooth; Sydney Sweeney gives birth alone while growling at a pack of wild dogs.

The result may not be terribly illuminating about the (sub)human condition, despite the shout-outs to Nietzsche and Schopenhauer. “Eden” is probably closer to an expensive reality show about mismatched survivalists. But as August fare goes, it’s a sticky, sweaty hoot, well cast and paced like a disreputable beach read, even if you might sporadically wish Werner Herzog had gotten first crack at this material. (It was also covered in a 2013 documentary.)

The first transplants to the uninhabited island of Floreana were German botanist Dr. Friedrich Ritter (Law) and his devoted, ailing partner, Dore (Kirby). Scolds who glorified suffering against the world’s wrong turns, the pair sought a radical reboot of society in rugged isolation, save the inconvenient fact that Ritter’s grandstanding philosophical missives back home were published in newspapers, turning them into eccentric folk heroes. Soon, their precious suffering took the form of new neighbors: idealistic war veteran Heinz Wittmer (Daniel Brühl) and his wide-eyed young wife Margret (Sweeney), who are looking for a new, self-sufficient way of life for their budding family.

It’s difficult to imagine a worse addition to this oil-and-water mix of high-minded nonconformist cranks and hard-toiling middle-class settlers than a capitalist sybarite. Enter the grandiose Baroness Eloise (De Armas), carried like Cleopatra onto the beach by her male lovers (Toby Wallace and Felix Klammerer), and ready to claim Floreana as the future site of an exclusive luxury resort called Hacienda Paradiso. Her first order of business, however, is pitting the scowling Ritter and bland, industrious Wittmers, who had managed a bearable distance so far, against each other.

The island, given an appropriately sickly, uninviting sheen by cinematographer Mathias Herndl, clearly wasn’t big enough for all of these new-world experimenters. But the movie’s two hours offer plenty of room for their portrayers. Howard’s generosity with his actors keeps this ensemble a charged group of clashing molecules. You wouldn’t mistake anybody’s turn for a full-throated or, conversely, subtle characterization — there’s a messiness to the cutting that prioritizes motion over stillness — but the broad strokes of personality are fun.

At its most raw (or is it overcooked?), when de Armas’ loaded-gun vibe veers toward camp or Law peacocks his pomposity with a hint of desperation, the situation may remind you of some insane pre-Code potboiler like 1932 “The Most Dangerous Game,” when a tale of people at their worst seemed all the more fascinating for unfurling in an exotic locale. Just because this corrupting pity party doesn’t crescendo so much as peter out isn’t any more of a reason to dismiss “Eden.” A little time spent with the farcical maneuverings of isolated megalomaniacs means you can skip reading the news that day.

US Vice President JD Vance hit the road on August 21 to promote President Donald Trump’s legislative accomplishment, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act tax and spending bill.

The law permanently extended tax cuts from a 2017 law Trump signed, which would have expired at the end of 2025 had Congress not reauthorised them. The law also included some new tax cuts, including for tips, overtime and Americans 65 and older.

Speaking in Peachtree City near Atlanta, Vance said, “We had the biggest tax cut for families that this country has ever seen.”

The tax cuts were significant, but they weren’t the biggest in US history, which was a phrase Trump has often used to inaccurately describe his 2017 tax cut law. The 2025 tax cuts rank either third-biggest since 1980 or tied for seventh, depending on the yardstick.

At the same time, many Americans could see relatively modest changes to the taxes they owe starting in 2026, because the 2025 law mostly extended existing tax cuts.

The White House did not provide a response before publication.

Comparing historical tax cut laws

We examined the tax revenue decreases from major laws passed since 1980. (On balance, most tax laws prior to 1980 either raised taxes or cut them modestly.)

Tax bill dollar amounts tend to rise over time because of inflation, so we looked at tax cuts as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), which evens out the differences over time. And because some early laws have tax cut data available only for the first five or six years of the law’s life, we compared laws by looking at the cumulative tax savings during a law’s first five years in effect.

We found that the law with the biggest tax savings was 1981 legislation passed by the Democratic Congress and signed by President Ronald Reagan, who won office promising large tax cuts. That law cut taxes by 3.5 percent of the nation’s cumulative five-year GDP.

A 2012 bill passed by the Republican Congress and signed by President Barack Obama ranked second. That bill, which cut taxes by 1.7 percent of GDP, extended the tax cuts passed in 2003 under President George W Bush.

Based on current projections, Trump’s 2025 law ranks third, at 1.4 percent of GDP when factoring in Trump’s 2017 cuts.

Trump’s 2017 law ranks fourth at 1 percent, tied with a 2010 law Obama signed that extended Bush’s 2001 tax cuts. Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts ranked sixth and seventh, with 0.7 percent and 0.5 percent, respectively.

If considering only new tax cuts and not the re-upped 2017 tax cuts, then Trump’s 2025 law would tie for seventh at 0.5 percent of GDP.

Joseph Rosenberg, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, said that it’s legitimate to measure the scale of the cuts in the 2025 tax law either way.

What will Americans see in their taxes starting in 2026?

There could be a disconnect between the historical scale of Trump’s 2025 bill and the impact that Americans will notice when filing 2026 taxes.

Because Americans are already paying the lower rates that began in 2017 and that the 2025 law extended, they won’t necessarily notice a sizeable reduction in taxes owed.

“For most families, they are going to see a child tax credit that increases by a maximum of $200 per child, from $2,000 to $2,200,” said Margot Crandall-Hollick, principal research associate at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. “Some are going to pay a little less because of the tips and overtime provisions and a slightly higher standard deduction.”

The law preserves a more generous standard deduction that had been set to expire and increases it slightly to $15,750 for single filers and $31,500 for joint filers in 2025, to be indexed to inflation annually.

At the same time, Crandall-Hollick said, some families, especially those with lower incomes, will pay higher taxes because of the expiration of health insurance premium tax credits, which were not extended by the Big Beautiful Bill.

As the Trump administration continues to ramp up immigration enforcement actions, a group of lawmakers is suing Immigration and Customs Enforcement for placing restrictions on detention center visits — obstructing Congress’ role in overseeing government functions.

Twelve House Democrats filed a lawsuit challenging new guidelines that require advance notice for oversight visits and render certain facilities off-limits. “No child should be sleeping on concrete, and no sick person should be denied care,” said Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Los Angeles). “Yet that’s exactly what we keep hearing is happening inside Trump’s detention centers.”

These lawmakers are right to seek access to detention facilities. Detention centers have long been plagued by poor conditions, so the need for oversight is urgent. With record numbers of migrants being detained, the public has a right to know how people in the government’s custody are being treated.

The U.S. operates the world’s largest immigration detention system, at a cost of $3 billion a year. This money is appropriated by Congress — and comes with conditions.

Under existing law, none of the funds given to Homeland Security may be used to prevent members of Congress from conducting oversight visits of “any facility operated by or for the Department of Homeland Security used to detain or otherwise house aliens.” In addition, the law states that members of Congress are not required to “provide prior notice of the intent to enter a facility.” So ICE’s attempt to place limits on oversight appears to be illegal.

The restrictions are also problematic because they claim to exempt the agency’s field offices from oversight. However, migrants are being locked up in such offices, including at the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building in Los Angeles, and 26 Federal Plaza in New York City. In the former, one detainee reported being fed only once a day, at 3 a.m. In the latter, as many as 80 detainees have been crammed into a single room amid sweltering summer temperatures. These offices were never set up to house people overnight or for days or weeks. If they are functioning as de facto detention centers, then they must be subject to inspections.

Congressional oversight of immigration detention is vital right now. The current capacity for U.S. detention facilities is 41,000. Yet the government was holding nearly 57,000 people as of July 27. That means facilities are far over capacity, in a system that the Vera Institute of Justice describes as “plagued by abuse and neglect.”

No matter who is president, conditions in immigrant detention are generally abysmal. Migrant detention centers have been cited for their lack of medical care, poor treatment of detainees, and physical and sexual violence. In 2019, the federal government itself reported that conditions in detention were inhumane. At least 11 people have died in detention since January. This reality cries out for more transparency and accountability — especially because Homeland Security laid off most of its internal watchdogs earlier this year.

The ranks of detainees include asylum-seekers, teenagers, DACA recipients, pregnant women, journalists and even U.S. citizens. Most of the detainees arrested lately have no criminal convictions. These folks are often arrested and moved thousands of miles away from home, complicating their access to legal representation and family visits. A visit by a congressional delegation may be the only way to ensure that they are being treated properly.

In response to the lawsuit by House Democrats, Tricia McLaughlin, a spokesperson for Homeland Security, said: “These members of Congress could have just scheduled a tour. Instead, they’re running to court to drive clicks and fundraising emails.” She added that ICE was imposing the new limits, in part, because of “obstructions to enforcement, including by politicians themselves.”

McLaughlin might have been referring to a May scuffle outside a Newark, N.J., detention center that led to charges being filed against Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.) and the arrest of the city’s mayor. But this incident would not have occurred if immigration officials had followed the law and allowed lawmakers inside to survey the facility’s conditions.

Indeed, the acting director of ICE, Todd Lyons, told a congressional hearing in May that he recognized the right of members to visit detention facilities, even with no notice. And the notion that any government agency can unilaterally regulate Congress runs afoul of the Constitution. The legislative branch has the right and obligation to supervise the executive branch. Simply put, ICE cannot tell members of Congress what they can or cannot do.

The need for oversight in detention facilities will only become greater in the future, as Congress just approved $45 billion for the expansion of immigrant detention centers. This could result in the daily detention of at least 116,000 people. Meanwhile, 55% of Americans, according to the Pew Center, disapprove of building more facilities to hold immigrants.

ICE’s new policies violate federal law. No agency is above oversight — and members of Congress must be allowed full access to detention facilities.

Raul A. Reyes is an immigration attorney and contributor to NBC Latino and CNN Opinion. X: @RaulAReyes; Instagram: @raulareyes1

A United States federal judge has granted a temporary block against a Texas law that would require the Ten Commandments from the Christian Bible to be displayed in the classrooms of every public school.

On Wednesday, US District Judge Fred Biery issued a preliminary injunction against Texas’s Senate Bill 10, which was slated to take effect on September 1.

Texas would have become the largest state to impose such a requirement on public schools.

But Judge Biery’s decision falls in line with two other court decisions over the past month: one in Arkansas and one in Louisiana, both of which ruled such laws are unconstitutional.

Biery’s decision opens by citing the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which bars the government from passing laws “respecting an establishment of religion”. That clause underpins the separation of church and state in the US.

The judge then argues that even “passive” displays of the Ten Commandments would risk injecting religious discourse into the classroom, thereby violating that separation.

“Even though the Ten Commandments would not be affirmatively taught, the captive audience of students likely would have questions, which teachers would feel compelled to answer. That is what they do,” Biery wrote.

“Teenage boys, being the curious hormonally driven creatures they are, might ask: ‘Mrs Walker, I know about lying and I love my parents, but how do I do adultery?’ Truly an awkward moment for overworked and underpaid educators, who already have to deal with sex education issues.”

Biery’s decision, however, only applies to the 11 school districts represented among the defendants, including Alamo Heights, Houston, Austin, Fort Bend and Plano.

The case stemmed from a complaint made by several parents of school-aged children, who were represented by groups including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

One of the plaintiffs was a San Antonio rabbi, Mara Nathan, who felt the version of the Ten Commandments slated to be displayed ran contrary to Jewish teachings. She applauded Wednesday’s injunction in a statement released by the ACLU.

“Children’s religious beliefs should be instilled by parents and faith communities, not politicians and public schools,” Nathan said.

Other plaintiffs included Christian families who feared the schoolhouse displays of the Ten Commandments would lead to the teaching of religious interpretations and concepts they might object to.

The Texas state government, however, has argued that the Ten Commandments symbolise an important part of US culture and therefore should be a mandatory presence in schools.

“The Ten Commandments are a cornerstone of our moral and legal heritage, and their presence in classrooms serves as a reminder of the values that guide responsible citizenship,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement. He pledged to appeal Wednesday’s ruling.

But in his 55-page decision, Judge Biery, who was appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1994, drew on a range of cultural references – from Christian scripture to the 1970s pop duo Sonny and Cher and the actress Greta Garbo – to sketch a history of the dangers of imposing religion on the public.

“The displays are likely to pressure the child-Plaintiffs into religious observance, meditation on, veneration, and adoption of the State’s favored religious scripture,” Biery wrote at one point.

He also said such displays risk “suppressing expression of [the children’s] own religious or nonreligious backgrounds and beliefs while at school”.

Biery even offered a winking, personal anecdote to illustrate the power that governments can hold over the adoption of religion.

“Indeed, forty years ago a Methodist preacher told a then much younger judge, ‘Fred, if you had been born in Tibet, you would be a Buddhist,’” Biery wrote.

A separate federal case involving Dallas area schools is also challenging the Ten Commandment requirement. It names the Texas Education Agency as a defendant.

Such cases are likely to eventually reach the Supreme Court, which currently has a six-to-three conservative supermajority and has shown sympathy for cases of religious displays.

In the 2022 case Kennedy v Bremerton School District, for instance, the Supreme Court sided with a high school football coach who argued he had the right to hold post-game prayers, despite fears that such practices could violate the First Amendment. The coach had been fired for his actions.

Judge Biery concluded Wednesday’s decision with a nod to how controversial such cases can be. But he appealed for common understanding with a prayer-like flourish.

“For those who disagree with the Court’s decision and who would do so with threats, vulgarities and violence, Grace and Peace unto you,” Biery wrote. “May humankind of all faiths, beliefs and non-beliefs be reconciled one to another. Amen.”

WASHINGTON — The federal budget deficits caused by President Trump’s tax and spending law could trigger automatic cuts to Medicare if Congress does not act, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported Friday.

The CBO estimates that Medicare, the federal health insurance program for Americans over age 65, could potentially see as much as $491 billion in cuts from 2027 to 2034 if Congress does not act to mitigate a 2010 law that forces across-the-board cuts to many federal programs once legislation increases the federal deficit. The latest report from CBO showed how Trump’s signature tax and spending law could put new pressure on federal programs that are bedrocks of the American social safety net.

Trump and Republicans pledged not to cut Medicare as part of the legislation, but the estimated $3.4 trillion that the law adds to the federal deficit over the next decade means that many Medicare programs could see cuts. In the past, Congress has always acted to mitigate cuts to Medicare and other programs, but it would take some bipartisan cooperation to do so.

Democrats, who requested the analysis from CBO, jumped on the potential cuts.

“Republicans knew their tax breaks for billionaires would force over half a trillion dollars in Medicare cuts — and they did it anyway,” Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said in a statement. “American families simply cannot afford Donald Trump’s attacks on Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare.”

Hospitals in rural parts of the country are already grappling with cuts to Medicaid, which is available to people with low incomes, and cuts to Medicare could exacerbate their shortfalls.

As Republicans muscled the bill through Congress and are now selling it to voters back home, they have been critical of how the CBO has analyzed the bill. They have also argued that the tax cuts will spur economic growth and pointed to $50 billion in funding for rural hospitals that was included in the package.

Groves writes for the Associated Press.

The challenge brought on by the trade group alleges that the age verification law is a violation of free speech

The United States Supreme Court has declined to put on hold a Mississippi law requiring that users of social media platforms verify their age and that minors have parental consent.

The high court made the decision on Thursday not to accept the challenge by NetChoice, a trade group that included tech giants such as Meta, Facebook and Instagram’s parent company, Alphabet which owns YouTube, and Snapchat.

The justices denied a request to block the law while the Washington-based tech industry trade association’s legal challenge to the law, which, it argues, violates the US Constitution’s protections against government abridgement of free speech, plays out in lower courts.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh in a statement about the court’s order said the Mississippi law was likely unconstitutional, but that NetChoice had not met the high bar to block the measure at this early stage of the case.

In a statement, Paul Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, said Kavanaugh’s view “makes clear that NetChoice will ultimately succeed” in its challenge. Taske called the Supreme Court’s order “an unfortunate procedural delay.”

NetChoice had turned to the Supreme Court after the New Orleans-based 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals let the law take effect even though a judge found it likely runs afoul of the First Amendment.

NetChoice sued in federal court in 2024 in a bid to invalidate the law, which was passed unanimously in the state legislature amid concern by lawmakers about the potential negative effects of social media use on the mental health of children.

Its emergency request to the justices marked the first time the Supreme Court was asked to consider a social media age-verification law.

The law requires that a social media platform obtain “express consent” from a parent or guardian of a minor before a child can open an account. It also states that regulated social media platforms must make “commercially reasonable” efforts to verify the age of users.

Under the law, the state can pursue civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation as well as criminal penalties under Mississippi’s deceptive trade practices law.

Multiple lawsuits

US District Judge Halil Suleyman Ozerden in Gulfport, Mississippi, last year blocked Mississippi from enforcing the restrictions on some NetChoice members.

Ozerden issued a second order in June pausing the rules against those members, including Meta and its Instagram and Facebook platforms, Snapchat and YouTube.

The 5th Circuit on July 17 issued a one-sentence ruling that paused the judge’s order, without explaining its reasoning.

Courts in seven states have preliminarily or permanently blocked similar measures, according to NetChoice.

Some technology companies are separately battling lawsuits brought by US states, school districts and individual users alleging that social platforms have exacerbated mental health problems. The companies have denied wrongdoing.

NetChoice said the social media platforms of its members already have adopted extensive policies to moderate content for minors and provide parental controls.

In its request to the Supreme Court, the state told the justices that age-verification and parental consent requirements “are common ways for states to protect minors”.

In May, Texas passed a law requiring Apple and Alphabet’s Google to verify the age of users of their app stores.

By midmorning in the Central Valley, the light turns hard and white, bleaching the sky and flattening every shadow. The rows of melons stretch to the horizon, vines twisted low in cracked soil. Pickers move in the rhythm the crop demands — bend, twist, lift, drop — their long sleeves damp with sweat, caps pulled low, bandanas hiding heat-burned cheeks. Spanish drifts along the rows, a joke here, a warning there, carried in the heavy air.

These are the cruelest days of harvest, when the sun turns fields into slow ovens and the heat climbs before breakfast, holding on until the stars are out. By nightfall, the damage is done: another collapse in the dirt, another family handed a death certificate instead of a paycheck.

It’s an all-too-familiar old problem in California. Nearly 20 years ago, in the shadow of four farmworker funerals — Arvin, Fresno County, Kern, Imperial Valley — California enacted the nation’s first heat rules for basic worker safety: water, shade, rest. Mercies you’d think needed no law. My fellow lawmakers and I who wrote those rules, along with then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger who signed them into law, believed they were enough. But two decades on, the grim reaper still walks the rows: 110 degrees, no tree, no tarp, a single water jug growing warm, its handle slick from dust and hands. Breaks denied, not from cruelty alone, but from the unrelenting clock of the harvest.

This is not a failure of the law itself, but of enforcement. Some treated the bill’s signing as the finish line instead of the starting gun. Inspectors are too few. Penalties too light. Investigations too slow. The state auditor’s latest report read like an obituary for Cal/OSHA’s credibility: outdated rules, missed chances, offices too empty to answer the phone.

Meanwhile the climate has turned meaner. Nights that once cooled now hold the day’s heat like a grudge. And the danger in the fields isn’t just the sun. Immigration raids now sweep through the Valley like dust storms — sudden, unannounced, merciless. For more than half of California’s 350,000 farmworkers, the greater threat isn’t heat stroke but a knock on the door before dawn or a traffic stop that ends with a vehicle full of workers detained and trucked to some distant site. The food that feeds the nation is pulled from the earth by people who work under triple-digit skies yet live in the shadows, where one complaint can cost them their job, their home, their freedom.

Twenty harvest seasons later, I’m calling for action — not another bill signing on the Capitol steps, but dollars, real and committed, and the regulations to match. With that will and funding, four simple fixes can turn promise into protection.

First, bring 21st century tools to the fields. In 2005, the “high-tech” solution was a plastic water jug in the shade and a flapping pop-up canopy. Today, for $50 — the price of two boxes of gloves — employers can deploy a wearable sensor clipped to a worker’s arm to track core temperature and heart rate, sending a warning before the body crosses the edge into heatstroke. That’s not Silicon Valley moonshot money. It’s pocket change for agribusiness, and for workers it could mean the difference between walking out of the rows or being carried out.

Second, enforce in real time. If a worker drops to one knee in the heat, the state shouldn’t hear about it days later in a report. Imagine a network linking growers, regulators and emergency crews to the same pulse of information — turning a slow, reactive system that documents tragedies into one that can act quickly and prevent many of them.

Third, train before the first row is picked. Ten minutes — no more — for workers to stand upright and learn, in their own language, the signs: dizziness, nausea, the creeping fog in the mind that means it’s time to stop. Not a photocopied handout in English tucked into an envelope behind a paycheck, not a rushed talk in Spanish at the field’s edge, but a verified safety course — certified by labor contractors and farmers alike. Knowledge here is as life-saving as water and shade.

Lastly, match the urgency we see in other arenas. While Cal/OSHA limps along, starved of staff and mired in red tape, Immigration and Customs Enforcement charges in the opposite direction — spurred by $170 billion in new funding, an immigration-enforcement and border-security blitz hiring thousands, dangling $50,000 signing bonuses, paying off student loans, waiving age limits, even pulling retirees back for double-dip salaries. That’s what happens when a government decides the wrong mission matters most. We pour urgency into chasing farmworkers from the fields, yet can’t muster the will to protect them in the heat. Until Cal/OSHA gets that same drive — inspectors recruited in every corner of the state, incentives to bring in a new generation, hurdles stripped away — the laws we wrote will remain a promise without a witness.

Some will say it’s too much, that the industry can’t bear the cost. But I’ve walked behind the hearses through Valley dust, stood in the gravel lots of farm town funeral homes, watched wives clutch work shirts as if they still held his warmth, seen children in Sunday clothes staring at the dirt. No budget line can measure that loss.

The Valley will keep feeding the nation. The question is whether we will keep feeding the graveyards too.

Once, by enacting heat safety rules, California declared that a life was worth more than a box of produce. If we let that promise wither in the heat, all we wrote back then was a press release. Government systems can fast-track billion-dollar projects, but until this much more affordable priority gets that kind of attention, the rules are just ink on paper, and the roll call of the dead just grows longer.

Dean Florez is a former California Senate majority leader, representing portions of the Central Valley.

Peruvian President Dina Boluarte has signed into law a controversial piece of legislation that would shield the military, police and other government-sanctioned forces from prosecution for human rights abuses committed during the country’s decades-long internal conflict.

On Wednesday, Boluarte held a signing ceremony at the presidential palace in Lima, where she defended the amnesty law as a means of honouring the sacrifices made by government forces.

“This is a historic day for our country,” she said. “It brings justice and honour to those who stood up to terrorism.”

But human rights groups and international observers have condemned the bill as a violation of international law — not to mention a denial of justice for the thousands of survivors who lived through the conflict.

From 1980 to 2000, Peru experienced a bloody conflict that pitted government forces against left-wing rebel groups like the Shining Path.

Both sides, however, committed massacres, kidnappings and assaults on unarmed civilians, with the death toll from the conflict climbing as high as 70,000 people.

Up until present, survivors and family members of the deceased have continued to fight for accountability.

An estimated 600 investigations are currently under way, and 156 convictions have been achieved, according to the National Human Rights Coordinator, a coalition of Peruvian human rights organisations.

Critics fear those ongoing probes could be scuttled under the wide-ranging protections offered by the new amnesty law, which stands to benefit soldiers, police officers and members of self-defence committees who face legal proceedings for which no final verdict has been rendered.

The legislation also offers “humanitarian” amnesty for those convicted over the age of 70.

Peru, however, falls under the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which ordered the country’s government to “immediately suspend the processing” of the law on July 24.

The court ruled against past amnesty laws in Peru. In cases of severe human rights violations, it ruled that there can be no sweeping amnesty nor age limits for prosecution.

In 1995, for instance, Peru passed a separate amnesty law that would have prevented the prosecution of security forces for human rights abuses between 1980 and that year. But it was greeted with widespread condemnation, including from United Nations experts, and it was eventually repealed.

In the case of the current amnesty law, nine UN experts issued a joint letter in July condemning its passage as a “clear breach of [Peru’s] obligations under international law”.

But at Wednesday’s signing ceremony, President Boluarte reiterated her position that such international criticism was a violation of her country’s sovereignty and that she would not adhere to the Inter-American Court’s decision.

“Peru is honouring its defenders and firmly rejecting any internal or external interference,” Boluarte said.

“We cannot allow history to be distorted, for perpetrators to pretend to be victims, and for the true defenders of the homeland to be branded as enemies of the nation they swore to protect.”

Peru’s armed forces, however, have been implicated in a wide range of human rights abuses. Just last year, 10 soldiers were convicted of carrying out the systematic rape of Indigenous and rural women and girls.

Drawing from Peru’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission report, the human rights group Amnesty International estimates that the country’s armed forces and police were responsible for 37 percent of the deaths and disappearances that happened during the conflict.

They were also credited with carrying out 75 percent of the reported instances of torture and 83 percent of sexual violence cases.

Francisco Ochoa, a victims’ advocate, spoke to Al Jazeera last month about his experiences surviving the 1985 Accomarca massacre as a 14-year-old teenager.

He had been in the corn fields preparing to sow seeds when soldiers arrived and rounded up the residents of his small Andean village.

Despite having no evidence linking the villagers to rebel groups, the soldiers locked many of them in their huts, fired into the structures and set them ablaze.

As many as 62 people were killed, including Ochoa’s mother, eight-year-old brother and six-year-old sister.

“The first thing I remember from that day is the smell when we arrived,” Ochoa, now 54, told journalist Claudia Rebaza. “It smelled like smouldering flesh, and there was no one around.”

When asked how he and other survivors felt about the amnesty law, Ochoa responded, “Outraged and betrayed”.

One of California’s largest agricultural employers plans to close a Central Valley grape nursery by the end of the year after laying off hundreds of employees, including many supportive of a United Farm Workers effort to unionize the workforce.

Wonderful Co., owned by billionaires Stewart and Lynda Resnick, plans to shut down the majority of the nursery in Wasco, northwest of Bakersfield, and donate the farm to UC Davis, representatives for the company and the university confirmed this week.

The move comes as Wonderful Nurseries remains locked in a battle with the UFW after the union last year petitioned to represent workers growing grapevines, using a new state “card check” law that made it easier for organizers to sign up workers. Company officials said their decision was unrelated to that.

“The decision to wind down Wonderful Nurseries was purely a business decision and in no way, shape or form related to our ongoing litigation with the UFW or the fraud so many farm workers reported by the union,” Wonderful Co. spokesman Seth Oster said.

In February, Wonderful Nurseries President Rob C. Yraceburu said in an email to employees that the state’s agricultural industry has seen tens of thousands of orchard and vineyard acres abandoned or removed. The table and wine grape industry is in a major downturn, meaning nurseries such as theirs have seen “significantly decreased sales and record losses, with no expectation of a turnaround anytime soon.”

Yet some labor experts and Wonderful employees are questioning the timing of the layoffs, which started just five months after the UFW won a key legal victory in its effort to organize the workforce.

Victor Narro, a labor studies professor at UCLA, said the closure and donation to UC Davis should be scrutinized.

“The question is, what’s the reason they’re doing it?” he said. “Is it really, in the end, to avoid unionization of the workforce? Or is it really that they’re making a sound financial decision?”

The UFW has not directly accused the Resnicks of retaliating against workers supportive of the union by closing the farm. But it has raised questions about the timing of both the layoffs and this week’s confirmation the nursery would be closed.

The entrance to Wonderful Nurseries on March 25, 2024, in Wasco, Calif.

(Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times)

At its seasonal peak, the 1,400-acre nursery employs about 600 workers who would have been part of the bargaining unit, but now only 20 still work at the facility, said Elizabeth Strater, director of strategic campaigns for the union. Overall, about 100 employees now work there, according to the company.

Yraceburu told employees there will be a phasedown in shutting the grape nursery. Workers, including those employed by farm labor contractors, will have an opportunity to apply for other Wonderful worksites, he said. A company spokesman said no other Wonderful farm is facing a similar reduction in workforce.

The nursery has been operating at a significant loss for several years, Oster said, but he did not say for how long or just how much it has lost.

It was not immediately clear whether UC Davis will recognize the farmworkers union once the university takes control of the nursery.

In a statement, UC Davis spokesperson Bill Kisliuk said the university is grateful for the gift, which includes the Wasco facility combined with a $5-million startup donation. The university will form an implementation committee to plan the use of the facility, Kisliuk said.

Although the university has a long history of respecting labor agreements, he said, the academic use of the site will be significantly different from the current commercial operation.

“This gift expands and builds upon one of the world’s leading agricultural research programs and will catalyze discovery and innovation,” he said. “We look forward to working with the Wonderful Company to successfully transfer the Wasco facilities and property to the University later this year.”

The Resnicks are big donors to state politicians and charities, but their philanthropy has been the target of recent union organizing efforts. In late July, UFW and other labor organizers gathered outside the Hammer Museum, the recipient of more than $30 million in donations from the Resnicks, who have a building named after them. The gathering came after the union released a video that appeared to show a Wonderful employee paying other workers to participate in an anti-union protest.

In the video, the worker, who has been a forefront anti-union advocate and has organized protests, is seen handing out $100 bills from the trunk of a car and encouraging workers to sign a sheet. In a separate video, she can be heard saying that she was directed to first feed everyone, hand out $100 and then they would receive an additional $50.

The unedited versions of the videos were shown during a hearing before an administrative law judge for the state Agricultural Labor Relations Board, where Wonderful Co. has challenged the UFW’s petition to represent the nursery employees. The board oversees collective bargaining for farmworkers in the state and also investigates charges of unfair labor practices.

Wonderful Nurseries in Wasco.

(Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times)

Now that Wonderful is closing its Wasco grape nursery, it is unclear what will happen in the proceedings, because there will soon be no workers to unionize. But the board could issue a ruling that would affect future disputes.

The UFW and Wonderful Co. have traded accusations over the last year: The company accused the union of using $600 in COVID-19 federal relief funds to trick farmworkers into signing the authorization cards. The company submitted nearly 150 signed declarations from nursery workers saying they had not understood that by signing the cards they were voting to unionize.

The UFW has rejected those accusations and, with the video, is suggesting that workers were paid to protest against the unionization effort at the height of the back-and-forth a year ago.

Rosa M. Silva, a Wonderful Nurseries worker for the last six years, said tensions have long been running high at the nursery, with some co-workers saying they don’t have a right to ask for raises or benefits. She said she believes that the company would rather shut down the nursery to avoid negotiating with them, a claim that Wonderful has forcefully rejected.

In July, Silva took a day off work and rallied outside the Hammer Museum. Protesters handed out fliers that read: “Tell Wonderful Company’s billionaire owners: Respect the farm workers. Stop spending money fighting the United Farm Workers.”

“This is my message to the Resnicks: if you can give millions to this art museum, which a majority of your workers will never visit, why can’t you also pay your workers something fair?” she said at the protest. “If you care so much about being respected by artists and lovers of art, why can’t you respect the people who plant, grow and harvest the products you sell?”

The UFW filed its petition with the labor board in February last year, asserting that a majority of the 600-plus farmworkers at Wonderful Nurseries in Wasco had signed the authorization cards and asking that the UFW be certified as their union representative.

At the time, it appeared to be the UFW’s third victorious unionization drive in a matter of months — following diminishing membership rates over the last several years.

Under the law, a union can organize farmworkers by inviting them to sign authorization cards at off-site meetings without notifying their employer. Under the old rules, farmworkers voted on union representation by secret ballot at a polling site designated by the state labor board, typically on employer property. The state law has since revitalized the union’s organizing efforts, and it has gone on to organize other farms.

Wonderful has sued the state to stop the card-check law. A ruling by a Kern County Superior Court judge that found the certification process under the card-check law as “likely unconstitutional” was superseded in October by an appellate court, which is still reviewing the case.

Ana Padilla, executive director of the UC Merced Community and Labor Center, said the Central Valley has been blanketed with anti-union messaging ever since the passage of the card-check law.

She also questioned the timing of shutting down the Wasco nursery. “Layoffs, store closures and offloading organized worksites are all part of the anti-unionism playbook,” she said.

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

Minutes after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth trumpeted plans to “flood” Washington with National Guard members, a senior U.S. military official took the stand in federal court in California to defend the controversial deployment of troops to Los Angeles.

The move during protests this summer has since become the model for President Trump’s increasing use of the military to police American streets.

But the trial, which opened Monday in San Francisco, turns on the argument by California that troops called up by Trump have been illegally engaged in civilian law enforcement.

“The military in Southern California are so tied in with ICE and other law enforcement agencies that they are practically indistinguishable,” California Deputy Atty. Gen. Meghan Strong told the court Tuesday.

“Los Angeles is just the beginning,” the deputy attorney general said. “President Trump has hinted at sending troops even farther, naming Baltimore and even Oakland here in the Bay Area as his next potential targets.”

Senior U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer said in court that Hegseth’s statements Monday could tip the scales in favor of the state, which must show the law is likely to be violated again so long as troops remain.

But the White House hasn’t let the pending case stall its agenda. Nor have Trump officials been fazed by a judge’s order restricting so-called roving patrols used by federal agents to indiscriminately sweep up suspected immigrants.

After Border Patrol agents last week sprang from a Penske moving truck and snatched up workers at a Westlake Home Depot — appearing to openly defy the court’s order — some attorneys warned the rule of law is crumbling in plain sight.

“It is just breathtaking,” said Mark Rosenbaum of Public Counsel, part of the coalition challenging the use of racial profiling by immigration enforcement. “Somewhere there are founding fathers who are turning over in their graves.”

The chaotic immigration arrests that swept through Los Angeles this summer had all but ceased after the original July 11 order, which bars agents from snatching people off the streets without first establishing reasonable suspicion that they are in the U.S. illegally.

An Aug. 1 ruling in the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals seemed to assure they could not resume again for weeks, if ever.

For the Department of Justice, the 9th Circuit loss was the latest blow in a protracted judicial beatdown, as many of the administration’s most aggressive moves have been held back by federal judges and tied up in appellate courts.

Trump “is losing consistently in the lower courts, almost nine times out of 10,” said Eric J. Segall, a professor at Georgia State University College of Law.

In the last two weeks alone, the 9th Circuit also found Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship unconstitutional and signaled it would probably rule in favor of a group of University of California researchers hoping to claw back funding from Trump’s war on diversity, equity and inclusion policies.

Elsewhere in the U.S., the D.C. Circuit Court appeared poised to block Trump’s tariffs, while a federal judge in Miami temporarily stopped construction at the migrant detention center known as Alligator Alcatraz.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta has noted that his Department of Justice had sued the administration nearly 40 times.

But even the breakneck pace of current litigation is glacial compared with the actions of immigration agents and federalized troops.

Federal officials have publicly relished big-footing California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, who have repeatedly warned the city is being used as a “petri dish” for executive force.

On Monday, the White House seemed to vindicate them by sending the National Guard to Washington.

Speaking for more than half an hour, Trump rattled off a list of American cities he characterized as under siege.

Asked whether he would deploy troops to those cities as well, the president said, “We’re just gonna see what happens.”

“We’re going to look at New York. And if we need to, we’re going to do the same thing in Chicago,” he said. “Hopefully, L.A. is watching.”

This image taken from video shows U.S. Border Patrol agents jumping out of a Penske box truck during an immigration raid at a Home Depot in Los Angeles, on Aug. 6, 2025.

(FOX News/Matt Finn via AP)

The U.S. Department of Justice argues that the same power that allows the president to federalize troops and deploy them on American streets also creates a “Constitutional exception” to the Posse Comitatus Act, a 19th century law that bars troops from civilian police action.

California lawyers say no such exception exists.

“I’m looking at this case and trying to figure out, is there any limitation to the use of federal forces?” Judge Breyer said.

Even if they keep taking losses, Trump administration officials “don’t have much to lose” by picking fights, said Ilya Somin, law professor at George Mason University and a constitutional scholar at the Cato Institute.

“The base likes it,” Somin said of the Trump’s most controversial moves. “If they lose, they can consider whether they defy the court.”

Other experts agreed.

“The bigger question is whether the courts can actually do anything to enforce the orders that they’re making,” said David J. Bier, an immigration expert at the Cato Institute. “There’s no indication to me that [Department of Homeland Security agents] are changing their behavior.”

Some scholars speculated the losses in lower courts might actually be a strategic sacrifice in the war to extend presidential power in the Supreme Court.

“It’s not a strategy whose primary ambition is to win,” said professor Mark Graber of the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law. “They are losing cases right and left in the district court, but consistently having district court orders stayed in the Supreme Court.”

Win or lose in the lower courts, the political allure of targeting California is potent, argued Segall, the law professor who studies the Supreme Court.

“There is an emotional hostility to California that people on the West Coast don’t understand,” Segall said. “California … is deemed a separate country almost.”

A favorable ruling in the Supreme Court could pave the way for deployments across the country, he and others warned.

“We don’t want the military on America’s streets, period, full stop,” Segall said. “I don’t think martial law is off the table.”

Pedro Vásquez Perdomo, a day laborer who is one of the plaintiffs in the Southern California case challenging racial profiling by immigration enforcement, has said the case is bigger than him.

He took to the podium outside the American Civil Liberties Union’s downtown offices Aug. 4, his voice trembling as he spoke about the temporary restraining order — upheld days earlier by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals — that stood between his fellow Angelenos and unchecked federal authority.

“I don’t want silence to be my story,” he said. “I want justice for me and for every other person whose humanity has been denied.”

Well, at least they’re not eating the cats and dogs.

To hear President Trump tell it, Washington, D.C., has become a barbarous hellhole — worse even than Springfield, Ohio, it would seem, where he accused Black immigrants, many from Somalia, of barbecuing pets last year during the campaign.

Back then, Trump was just a candidate. Now, he’s the commander in chief of the U.S. military with a clear desire to use troops of war on American streets, whether it’s for a fancy birthday parade, to enforce his immigration agenda in Los Angeles or to stop car thefts in the nation’s capital.

“It’s becoming a situation of complete and total lawlessness,” Trump said during a Monday news conference, announcing that he was calling up National Guard troops to help with domestic policing in D.C.

“We’ll get rid of the slums, too. We have slums here. We’ll get rid of them,” he said. “I know it’s not politically correct. You’ll say, ‘Oh, so terrible.’ No, we’re getting rid of the slums where they live.”

Where “they” live.

While the use of the military on American streets is alarming, it should be just as scary how blatantly this president is tying race not just to crime, but to violence so uncontrollable it requires military troops to stop it. Tying race to criminality is nothing new, of course. It’s a big part of American history and our justice system has unfortunately been steeped in it, from the Jim Crow era to the 1990s war on drugs, which targeted inner cities with the same rhetoric that Trump is recycling now.

The difference between that last attack on minorities — started by President Nixon and lasting through Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, also under the guise of law and order — and our current circumstances is that in this instance, the notion of war isn’t just hyperbole. We are literally talking about soldiers in the streets, targeting Black and brown people. Whether they are car wash employees in California or teenagers on school break in D.C., actual crimes don’t seem to matter. Skin color is enough for law enforcement scrutiny, a sad and dangerous return to an era before civil rights.

“Certainly the language that President Trump is using with regard to D.C. has a message that’s racially based,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law.

Chemerinsky pointed out that just a few days ago, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals called out the Trump administration for immigration raids that were unconstitutional because they were basically racial sweeps. But he is unabashed. His calls for violence against people of color are escalating. It increasingly appears that bringing troops to Los Angeles was a test case for a larger use of the military in civilian settings.

President Trump holds up a chart in front of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth during Monday’s news conference announcing the deployment of troops in Washington, D.C.

(Alex Brandon / Associated Press)

“This will go further,” Trump ominously said, making it clear he’d like to see soldiers policing across America.

“We have other cities also that are bad, very bad. You look at Chicago, how bad it is,” he went on. “We have other cities that are very bad. New York has a problem. And then you have, of course, Baltimore and Oakland. We don’t even mention that anymore, they’re so, they’re so far gone.”

In reality, crime is dropping across the United States, including in Washington. As the Washington Post pointed out, violent crime rates, including murders, have for the most part been on a downward trend since 2023. But all it takes is a few explosive examples to banish truth from conscientiousness. Trump pointed out some tragic and horrific examples — including the beating of Edward “Big Balls” Coristine, a former employee of the president’s Department of Government Efficiency who was attacked after attempting to defend a woman during a carjacking recently, not far from the White House.

These are crimes that should be punished, and certainly not tolerated. But the exploitation we are seeing from Trump is a dangerous precedent to justify military force for domestic law enforcement, which until now has been forbidden — or at least assumed forbidden — by the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.

This week, just how strong that prohibition is will be debated in a San Francisco courtroom, during the three-day trial over the deployment of troops in Los Angeles. While it’s uncertain how that case will resolve, “Los Angeles could provide a bit of a road map for any jurisdiction seeking to push back against the Trump administration when there’s a potential threat of sending in federal troops,” Jessica Levinson, a constitutional legal scholar at Loyola Law School, told me.

Again, California coming out as the biggest foil to a Trump autocracy.

But while we wait in the hopes that the courts will catch up to Trump, we can’t be blind to what is happening on our streets. Race and crime are not linked by anything other than racism.

Allowing our military to terrorize Black and brown people under the guise of law and order is nothing more than a power grab based on the exploitation of our darkest natures.

It’s a tactic Trump has perfected, but one which will fundamentally change, and weaken, American justice if we do not stop it.

A high-profile law firm representing the city of Los Angeles in a sweeping homelessness case submitted an $1.8-million invoice for two weeks of work in May, according to records reviewed by The Times.

The invoice from Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP comes as the city is already under serious financial pressure, caused in part by rapidly growing legal payouts.

With at least 15 of Gibson Dunn’s lawyers billing at nearly $1,300 per hour, the price tag so far equates to just under $140,000 per day over a 13-day period.

Gibson Dunn, while representing the city of Grants Pass, Ore., recently secured a landmark ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court that upheld laws barring homeless encampments in public spaces.

Los Angeles officials retained the law firm in May, roughly a week before a seven-day evidentiary hearing to determine whether control over the city’s homelessness programs should be taken away from Mayor Karen Bass and the City Council and turned over to a third-party receiver.

A month later, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter issued a scathing ruling, saying the city failed to adhere to the terms of a three-year-old settlement agreement with the L.A. Alliance for Human Rights, which calls for the creation of 12,915 homeless beds or other housing opportunities by June 2027.

Still, Carter also concluded that “this is not the time” to hand control of the city’s roughly $1 billion in homelessness programs to a third party.

Matthew Umhofer, an attorney representing the Alliance, said the city paid big money to Gibson Dunn in a failed attempt to wriggle out of its legal obligations.

“The city should be spending this money on complying with the agreement, and/or providing services to the people who need them,” he said. “Instead, they are paying a law firm to fight tooth and nail against obligations that are clear in the settlement agreement — and that a judge has affirmed they are in violation of.”

The invoice, which The Times obtained from the city attorney’s office, lists a billing period from May 19 to May 31, covering a week of preparations for the high-stakes federal hearing, as well as four of the seven trial days — each of which typically lasted eight or more hours.

Theane Evangelis, head of the Gibson Dunn team representing the city, referred questions about the invoice to the city attorney’s office.

Karen Richardson, a spokesperson for City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto, said in a statement that Gibson Dunn “did an outstanding job of stepping into a crucial matter that had been in litigation for nearly 5 years before they were hired,” compressing “what would normally be years worth of work into a very short time period.”

“We are grateful for their service and are in the process of reviewing the expenditures … to ensure that we go back to Council with a complete picture of what was done and charged,” she said in a statement.

The city retained Gibson Dunn just as council members were signing off on hundreds of employee layoffs, part of a larger strategy for closing a nearly $1-billion budget shortfall. The first batch of layoff notices was scheduled to go out this week.

The City Council initially appropriated $900,000 for Gibson Dunn, for a period not exceeding three years, according to the firm’s contract. Going over $900,000 required prior written approval from the city attorney, according to the contract.

The law firm quickly surpassed that threshold, eventually billing double the specified amount.

During the seven-day hearing, Gibson Dunn took a highly aggressive posture, voicing numerous objections to questions from attorneys representing the Alliance, as well as two organizations that intervened in the case.

Councilmember Bob Blumenfield, who serves on the council’s homelessness committee, said the city attorney’s office did not advise him that Gibson Dunn’s legal costs had reached $1.8 million in such a short period. Blumenfield, who represents part of the San Fernando Valley, said he is “not happy” but is reserving further comment until he receives more specifics.

Three months ago, Blumenfield co-authored a motion with Councilmember Tim McOsker seeking regular updates on the Alliance litigation — both from Gibson Dunn and the city attorney’s office.

McOsker, who serves on the budget committee and spent several years running the city attorney’s office, also did not receive notification of the Gibson Dunn $1.8-million invoice from the city’s legal team, according to Sophie Gilchrist, his spokesperson.

Gilchrist said her boss had asked for regular updates to “prevent any surprises in billing” related to the Alliance case.

“That’s why the Councilmember is requesting that this matter be brought to City Council immediately, so the City Attorney can provide a full accounting and discuss all invoices related to the case,” she said.

Gibson Dunn has filed a notice of the city’s intent to appeal at least portions of Carter’s ruling, which ordered a third-party monitor to review and verify the data being produced by the city on its housing and encampment goals.

Carter signaled that he probably would order the city to pay the legal fees of the Alliance and homeless advocacy groups that have intervened in the case. So far, the Alliance has sought $1.3 million from the city to cover its legal expenses incurred since April 2024.

In a statement to The Times earlier this week, Evangelis, the Gibson Dunn lawyer, cited the judge’s “suggestion that the Alliance may recover attorneys’ fees” as one reason for the appeal.

“The City believes that its resources should be spent providing services to those in need, not redirected to the Alliance’s lawyers — particularly when the district court has rejected most of their arguments,” she said.

THE family of a boy of two murdered by his grandparents are calling for a change in the law.

Ethan Ives-Griffiths was found injured at the home of his mum’s parents but social workers were turned away.

Now relatives on the paternal side have set up a petition for “Ethan’s Law” — giving child services extra powers to bring in police if denied entry.

Mold crown court was told Michael Ives, 47, and Kerry Ives, 46, subjected Ethan to “casual brutality” in Flintshire, North Wales.

They were convicted after a jury heard he was hit or shaken.

Ethan’s mother Shannon Ives, 28, had been living with them and was convicted of causing or allowing his death.

They will be sentenced in October.

Ethan’s paternal family set up a petition calling for an update in child protection services.

The petition also calls for checks to be carried out every five to seven days as opposed to the current 10-days.

It states: “Let us come together to push for these crucial reforms in child protection services.

“By signing this petition, you join us in advocating for the safety and security of all children like Ethan, ensuring that no child suffers in silence.

So far, the petition for ‘Ethan’s Law’ has over 400 signatures.

1

LINCOLN, Neb. — Rep. Mike Flood has gotten an earful during a public meeting in Lincoln aimed at discussing his support for the massive tax breaks and spending cuts bill that passed Congress and was signed into law by President Trump.

Flood, a second-term Republican who represents the GOP-leaning district that includes the University of Nebraska, on Monday braved the ire of a college town audience dominated by hundreds of people intent on expressing their displeasure chiefly with cuts to Medicaid benefits and tax reductions tilted toward the wealthy.

He described the law as less than perfect but stood firm on its Medicaid and tax provisions, fueling a 90-minute barrage of jeers and chants in a scenario House Republican leaders have specifically advised GOP members to avoid.

“More than anything I truly believe this bill protects Medicaid for the future,” Flood said, setting off a shower of boos from the audience of roughly 700 in the University of Nebraska’s Kimball Recital Hall. “We protected Medicaid.”

How voters receive the law, passed with no Democratic support in the narrowly GOP-controlled House and Senate, could go a long way to determine whether Republicans keep power in next year’s midterm elections.

Flood was resolute on his position but engaged with the audience at times. During his repeated discussions of Medicaid, he asked if people in the audience thought able-bodied Americans should be required to work. When many shouted their opposition, he replied, “I don’t think a majority of Nebraskans agree with that.”

Dozens formed a line to the microphone to speak to Flood, most asking pointed questions about the law, but many others questioning moves by the Trump administration on immigration enforcement, education spending and layoffs within the federal bureaucracy.

Some came prepared to confront him.

“You said in Seward you were not a fascist,” one man stood in line to say. “Your complicity suggests otherwise.”

Flood shot back, “Fascists don’t hold town halls with open question-and-answer sessions.”

Asked if he would block the release of files related to the sex trafficking case involving the late Jeffrey Epstein, Flood said he supports their release as a co-sponsor of a nonbinding resolution calling for their publication. Flood also said he supports requiring a deposition from Epstein’s convicted co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell, who argues she was wrongfully prosecuted.

Flood’s audience was gathering more than an hour before the doors opened. And as people lined up in the warm August air, he sauntered by, introducing himself, shaking hands and thanking people, including retired Lincoln teacher and school administrator Mary Ells, for attending.

“I believe Congressman Flood listened in a socially appropriate way,” Ells said after expressing concerns to Flood about her grandchildren’s future. “I do not believe he listens in a responsive, action-oriented way for citizens in Nebraska that do not agree with the national playbook written elsewhere but being implemented here.”

Inside the hall, much of that decorum vanished.

During Flood’s discussion of his support of the law’s tax provisions, which he argued would benefit the middle class, the audience exploded in a deafening chant of “Tax the rich.”

Other refrains included “Vote him out!” and “Free Palestine!”

Hecklers often drowned out Flood, creating a rolling cacophony with only occasional pauses.

Republican lawmakers’ town halls have been few and far between since the bill passed early last month, in part because their leaders have advised them against it. Trump and others say the law will give the economy a jolt, but Democrats feel they’ve connected with criticism of many of its provisions, especially its cuts to Medicaid and tax cuts tilted toward the wealthy.

Flood later downplayed the confrontation as “spirited” but “part of the process” during an impromptu press conference.

“It doesn’t mean you can make everybody happy,” he said. “But, you know, if you feel strongly about what you’re doing in Congress, stand in the town square, tell them why you voted that way, listen to their questions, treat them with respect and invite them to continue to communicate.”

Unlike dozens of other Republicans in competitive districts, Flood hardly has to worry, as Republicans brace for a challenge to their razor-thin majority in the House next year. Elected in 2022, Flood was reelected to the seat last year by winning 60% of the vote in a district that includes Lincoln in Democratic-leaning Lancaster County but also vast Republican-heavy rural tracts in 11 counties that ring the Omaha metropolitan area.

Beaumont writes for the Associated Press.

“But we’ve also made a choice that we select domestically if the players are of equal calibre, it’s important that we invest in our premier competition in Australia.”

The Wallabies, who compete for domestic talent with Aussie Rules and rugby league clubs, have struggled for depth and consistency in recent years – sliding to sixth in the world rankings.

The two-time world champions suffered a pool-stage exit at the 2023 Rugby World Cup in France.

Until 2015, Australia had a blanket ban on overseas-based players representing the Wallabies.

However, with the likes of playmaker Matt Giteau, wing Drew Mitchell and prop Sekope Kepu lured abroad by big contracts, ‘Giteau’s Law’ was introduced to allow a set number of overseas players – who had served time in Super Rugby and the national team – to still be picked.

The law has been further relaxed in recent years, with players with a commitment to return to Australian rugby excluded from the overseas quota.

Centre Len Ikitau and prop Angus Bell’s forthcoming season-long sabbatical stints at Exeter and Ulster are such moves.

However, Gleeson was reportedly excluded from a Wallabies training camp, external at the start of this year after news of his impending move to France became public.