order

The Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) has said Air Canada’s ongoing strike, in which 10,000 cabin crew members have walked off their jobs, is illegal after strikers ignored orders to return to work.

The regulatory board made the call on Monday after it previously declared that workers must return to the job as of 2pm ET (18:00 GMT) on Sunday.

The cabin crew for the Montreal-based carrier had pushed for a negotiated solution, saying binding arbitration would take pressure off the airline. Workers have said that the proposed wage hikes are insufficient to keep up with inflation and match the federal minimum wage.

The attendants are also calling to be paid for work performed on the ground, such as helping passengers to board. They are now only paid when planes are moving, sparking some vocal support from Canadians on social media.

A leader of the union on strike against Air Canada said on Monday that he would risk jail time rather than allow cabin crews to be forced back to work.

“If it means folks like me going to jail, then so be it. If it means our union being fined, then so be it. We’re looking for a solution here,” said Mark Hancock, Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) national president, at a press conference after a deadline by the board to return to work expired with no union action to end the strike.

Air Canada’s CEO Michael Rousseau told the news agency Reuters that he was “amazed” that the union was not following the law, adding, “At this point in time, the union’s proposals are much higher than the 40 percent [hike we have offered]. And so we need to find a path to bridge that gap,” he said, without suggesting what that process would be. “We’re always open to listen, and have a conversation,” he said.

Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney voiced his support for the cabin crews, saying that they should be “compensated equitably at all times”.

Pushing for a resolution, Carney said, “We are in a situation where literally hundreds of thousands of Canadians and visitors to our countries are being disrupted by this action.”

The airline normally carries 130,000 people daily during the ongoing peak summer travel season and is part of the global Star Alliance of airlines.

On Monday, Air Canada suspended its third-quarter and annual profit forecasts as its planes remained grounded.

The union said it would continue its strike and invited Air Canada back to the table to “negotiate a fair deal”.

A government nudge

The government’s options to end the strike now include asking courts to enforce the order to return to work and seeking an expedited hearing.

The minority government could also try to pass legislation that would need the support of political rivals and approval in both houses of the Parliament of Canada, which are on break until September 15.

“The government will be very reticent to be too heavy-handed because in Canada, the Supreme Court has ruled that governments have to be very careful when they take away the right to strike, even for public sector-workers who may be deemed essential,” said Dionne Pohler, professor of dispute resolution at Cornell University’s Industrial and Labor Relations School.

Another option is to encourage bargaining, Pohler said.

The government did not respond to requests for comment.

On Saturday, Carney’s Liberal government moved to end the strike by asking the CIRB to order binding arbitration. The CIRB, an independent administrative tribunal that interprets and applies Canada’s labour laws, issued the order, which Air Canada had sought, and unionised flight attendants opposed.

The previous government, under former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, intervened last year to head off rail and dock strikes that threatened to cripple the economy, but it is highly unusual for a union to defy a CIRB order.

Travellers at Toronto Pearson International Airport over the weekend said they were confused and frustrated about when they would be able to fly.

Italian Francesca Tondini, 50, sitting at the Toronto airport, said she supported the union even though she had no idea when she would be able to return home.

“They are right,” she said with a smile, pointing at the striking attendants.

The dispute between cabin crews and Air Canada hinges on the way airlines compensate flight attendants. Most, including Air Canada, pay them only when planes are in motion.

In their latest contract negotiations, flight attendants in both Canada and the United States have sought compensation for hours worked, including for tasks such as boarding passengers.

New labour agreements at American Airlines and Alaska Airlines legally require carriers to start the clock for paying flight attendants when passengers are boarding.

American flight attendants are now also compensated for some hours between flights. United Airlines’ cabin crews, who voted down a tentative contract deal last month, also want a similar provision.

On the markets, Air Canada’s stock is down 1.6 percent as of 12pm in Toronto (16:00 GMT). US carrier United Airlines – another Star Alliance member, which does not have a striking cabin crew and which serves several major Canadian cities – is up 1.4 percent.

Aug. 17 (UPI) — Air Canada on Sunday delayed plans to resume limited operations after flight attendants defied a government-mandated back-to-work order and binding arbitration.

Limited service instead will resume on Monday night, the airline said in a news release Sunday.

Flight attendants with Air Canada and Air Canada Rouge originally were ordered to return to shifts by 2 p.m. Sunday, CBC reported.

The 10,000 flight attendants remain on strike, which began after midnight Saturday.

“We invite Air Canada back to the table to negotiate a fair deal, rather than relying on the federal government to do their dirty work for them when bargaining gets a little bit tough,” the Canadian Union of Public Employees said in a statement.

“We have received overwhelming support from the public and Union workers everywhere,” the union posted on Facebook. “This is an historic moment for labor and for workers across the country.”

CUPE National President Mark Hancock ripped up the order Sunday in front of a cheering crowd outside Toronto’s Pearson International Airport.

“We will continue to fight on the picket lines, on the streets, at the bargaining table, in the courts, and in Parliament, until the injustice of unpaid work is done for good,” he said Saturday in a union news release. “Workers will win — despite the best effort of the Liberal government and their corporate friends.”

On Saturday, 12 hours after the strike, Jobs Minister Patty Haju invoked Section 107 of the Canadian Labor Code, which directs the Canadian Relations Board to arbitrate the dispute and extended the terms of the existing agreement until a new one is determined by an arbiter. The contract expired on March 31.

“We will be challenging this blatantly unconstitutional order that violates the Charter rights of 10,000 flight attendants, 70 percent of whom are women, and 100 percent of whom are forced to do hours of unpaid work by their employer every time they come to work,” the union said in a statement.

Air Canada said the union “illegally directed its flight attendants to defy a direction” from the Canadian Industrial Relations Board to return to work.

The carrier said it planned to resume approximately 240 of its normal 700 flights a day, though it would take seven to 10 days for the schedule to “stabilize.”

More than 130,000 travelers worldwide fly on the airline daily.

Canada’s largest airline includes 170 international ones, and from 50 Canadian airports. Between more than 50 U.S. airports and Canada, the company averages about 430 daily flights.

Air Canada Express, with 300 regional flights, is operated by Jazz Aviation and PAl Airlines, is not affected.

Customers will be notified about canceled flights and are strongly advised not to go the airport unless they have confirmed flights on other airlines.

Those on canceled flights can obtain a full refund or receive a credit for future travel.

Also, the carrier will offer to rebook customers on other carriers, although capacity is limited because of the peak summer travel season.

Flight attendants went on strike at 12:58 a.m. EDT Saturday and the company locked them out at 1:30 a.m.

The flight attendants and their supporters were on picket lines throughout Canada.

The last negotiations were on Friday night, and no new talks were scheduled.

“Air Canada and CUPE flight attendants are at an impasse and remain unable to resolve their dispute,” she said in a statement released Saturday afternoon Eastern time. “Canadians are increasingly finding themselves in very difficult situations and the strike is rapidly impacting the Canadian economy.”

“This decision will help make sure that hundreds of thousands of Canadians and visitors to our country are not impacted because of cancelled flights. Further, the shipments of critical goods such as pharmaceuticals and organ tissue, over 40% of which are moved by Air Canada, should continue to reach their destinations,” she said.

On Wednesday, the airline served the union a statutory 72-hour lockout notice in response to the union’s 72-hour strike notice.

Air Canada was canceling flights ahead of the work stoppage.

“I don’t think anyone’s in the mood to go back to work,” Lillian Speedie, vice president of CUPE Local 4092, told CBC at a picket line outside Toronto Pearson International Airport in Mississauga on Sunday. “To legislate us back to work 12 hours after we started? I’m sorry, snowstorms have shut down Air Canada for longer than we were allowed to strike.”

The Air Canada union asked the jobs minister to direct the parties to enter into binding arbitration.

But on Saturday afternoon, the union blasted the order to end the strike and posted images and video strikers. More visuals were posted Sunday.

“This sets a terrible precedent. Contrary to the Minister’s remarks, this will not ensure labor peace at Air Canada,” the union said Saturday.

Air Canada has become dependent on the federal government to solve its labor-relations issues, Steven Tufts, associate professor and labour geographer at York University, told CBC.

“Air Canada has to learn not to call mommy and daddy every time they reach an impasse at the bargaining table,” Tufts said. “They have to actually sit down and get a deal done with their workers.”

In 2024, Air Canada asked for the government to be ready to step in but the two sides reached a tentative agreement.

Flight attendants want to be compensated for work before the flights take off and after they land. Typically with most airlines, they get paid only for the hours they are in the air.

Workers at Canada’s flagship carrier defy back-to-work order as they stage first strike in 40 years.

Air Canada flight attendants have said they will remain on strike despite a government-backed labour board’s order to return to work by 2pm ET (18:00 GMT), which they described as unconstitutional.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees said in a statement on Sunday that members would remain on strike and invited Air Canada back to the table to “negotiate a fair deal”.

Canada’s largest airline now says it will resume flights on Monday evening. The strike was already affecting about 130,000 travellers around the world per day during the peak summer travel season.

The Canadian government on Saturday moved to end a strike by more than 10,000 flight attendants at the country’s largest carrier by asking the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) to order binding arbitration.

The Canada Labour Code gives the government the power to ask the CIRB to impose binding arbitration in the interest of protecting the economy. The CIRB issued the order, which Air Canada had sought, and unionised flight attendants opposed it.

It is unusual for a union to defy a CIRB order. It was not immediately clear what options the government has if the union continues its strike.

Air Canada flight attendants walked off the job on Saturday for the first time since 1985, after months of negotiations over a new contract.

Natasha Stea, an Air Canada flight attendant and local union president, told Reuters that other unions joined the flight attendants’ picket line in solidarity in Toronto on Sunday.

“They are in support here today because they are seeing our rights being eroded,” Stea said.

The most contentious issue has been the union’s demand for compensation for time spent on the ground between flights and when helping passengers board. Attendants are largely paid only when their plane is moving.

Workers are also unhappy with Air Canada’s proposed wage hikes and other compensation terms, which they see as insufficient to keep pace with inflation or match the federal minimum wage.

WASHINGTON — The nation’s capital challenged President Trump’s takeover of its police department in court on Friday, hours after his administration stepped up its crackdown on policing by naming a federal official as the new emergency head of the department, with all the powers of a police chief.

District of Columbia Atty. Gen. Brian Schwalb said in a new lawsuit that Trump is going far beyond his power under the law. Schwalb asked a judge to find that control of the department remains in district hands and sought an emergency restraining order.

“The administration’s unlawful actions are an affront to the dignity and autonomy of the 700,000 Americans who call D.C. home. This is the gravest threat to Home Rule that the District has ever faced, and we are fighting to stop it,” Schwalb said.

The lawsuit comes after Trump Attorney General Pam Bondi said Thursday night that Drug Enforcement Administration boss Terry Cole will assume “powers and duties vested in the District of Columbia Chief of Police.” The Metropolitan Police Department “must receive approval from Commissioner Cole” before issuing any orders, Bondi said. It was unclear where the move left the city’s current police chief, Pamela Smith, who works for the mayor.

Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser pushed back, writing on social media that “there is no statute that conveys the District’s personnel authority to a federal official.”

Justice Department and White House spokespeople did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment on the district’s lawsuit Friday morning.

Chief had agreed to share immigration information

Schwalb had said late Thursday that Bondi’s directive was “unlawful,” arguing it could not be followed by the city’s police force. He wrote in a memo to Smith that “members of MPD must continue to follow your orders and not the orders of any official not appointed by the Mayor,” setting up the legal clash between the heavily Democratic district and the Republican administration.

Bondi’s directive came even after Smith had told MPD officers hours earlier to share information with immigration agencies regarding people not in custody, such as someone involved in a traffic stop or checkpoint. The Justice Department said Bondi disagreed with the police chief’s directive because it allowed for continued enforcement of “sanctuary policies,” which generally limit cooperation by local law enforcement with federal immigration officers.

Bondi said she was rescinding that order as well as other MPD policies limiting inquires into immigration status and preventing arrests based solely on federal immigration warrants. All new directives must now receive approval from Cole, the attorney general said.

The police takeover is the latest move by Trump to test the limits of his legal authorities to carry out his agenda, relying on obscure statutes and a supposed state of emergency to bolster his tough-on-crime message and his plans to speed up the mass deportation of people in the U.S. illegally.

It also marks one of the most sweeping assertions of federal authority over a local government in modern times. While Washington has grappled with spikes in violence and visible homelessness, the city’s homicide rate ranks below those of several other major U.S. cities and the capital is not in the throes of the public safety collapse the administration has portrayed.

Residents are seeing a significant show of force

A population already tense from days of ramp-up has begun seeing more significant shows of force across the city. National Guard troops watched over some of the world’s most renowned landmarks and Humvees took position in front of the busy main train station. Volunteers helped homeless people leave long-standing encampments — to where was often unclear.

Department of Homeland Security police stood outside Nationals Park during a game Thursday between the Washington Nationals and the Philadelphia Phillies. DEA agents patrolled The Wharf, a popular nightlife area, while Secret Service officers were seen in the Foggy Bottom neighborhood.

Bowser, walking a tightrope between the Republican White House and the constituency of her largely Democratic city, was out of town Thursday for a family commitment in Martha’s Vineyard but would be back Friday, her office said.

The uptick in visibility of federal forces around the city, including in many high-traffic areas, has been striking to residents going about their lives. Trump has the power to take over federal law enforcement for 30 days before his actions must be reviewed by Congress, though he has said he’ll re-evaluate as that deadline approaches.

Officers set up a checkpoint in one of D.C.’s popular nightlife areas, drawing protests. Troops were stationed outside the Union Station transportation hub as the 800 Guard members who have been activated by Trump started in on missions that include monument security, community safety patrols and beautification efforts, the Pentagon said.

Troops will assist law enforcement in a variety of roles, including traffic control posts and crowd control, National Guard Major Micah Maxwell said. The Guard members have been trained in de-escalation tactics and crowd control equipment, Maxwell said.

National Guard troops are a semi-regular presence in D.C., typically being used during mass public events like the annual July 4 celebration. They have regularly been used in the past for crowd control in and around Metro stations.

Whitehurst, Khalil and Richer write for the Associated Press.

BBC gameshow Destination X viewers couldn’t help but laugh as one of the contestants blamed a ‘dodgy’ challenge as they were left furious over the results

A contestant on Destination X, Josh, has blamed his defeat on a “dodgy” task, claiming he was “cheated”.

Josh is one of the six remaining contestants in Rob Brydon’s BBC gameshow, where he’s vying for a £100,000 prize in the reality competition that’s been likened to a blend of The Traitors and Race Across The World.

Despite gaining an advantage in yesterday’s episode, tonight’s show (Thursday 14 August) saw him paired up with record-breaker Nick for a challenge, but they didn’t fare well against their competitors.

When they struggled to answer questions about clues they’d spotted in Venice, both Josh and Nick tried to argue that a faulty buzzer was to blame for their poor performance.

READ MORE: Destination X thrown into chaos as police interrupts next episode of BBC showREAD MORE: Destination X viewers ‘baffled’ as they spot ‘obvious clue’ contestants missed

“I feel cheated, the buzzers weren’t working,” Josh raged. “It wasn’t fair,” reports the Manchester Evening News.

Throughout the challenge, he maintained that the buzzer “wasn’t working” and was “dodgy”.

“I feel like the button was dodgy, I’m pretty sure I pressed it first and I know for a fact I’ve got very good reactions.”

At one point, he even confronted host Rob, saying: “Can I have a word? That’s out of order!”

One viewer responded on X: “Get over it Josh, you’re just too slow!”

Another commented: “Josh blaming the button is hilarious.”

Yet another viewer chuckled: “Josh and Nick claiming the buzzer doesn’t work. Sore losers.”

Meanwhile, their competitor Darren found their loss amusing: “Josh and Nick weren’t very gracious in defeat whatsoever, which made it all the more sweeter. I loved it.”

Before stepping into the villa, Josh worried viewers might perceive him as arrogant, explaining: “They might think I’m quite cocky but I just believe in self love. If you can’t love yourself, you can’t start to do things.”

The 26 year old aviator continued: “I have a lot of qualities that can help me within the game such as flight training and I also know meteorology and navigation. I’m quite a social person as well. I’ve got a good mix of intelligence and sociability.”

Destination X is available to watch on BBC iPlayer

WASHINGTON — The Washington, D.C., police chief stepped up cooperation between her officers and federal immigration officials as President Trump’s law enforcement takeover of the nation’s capital took root Thursday. National Guard troops watched over some of the world’s most renowned landmarks, and Humvees took up position in front of the busy main train station.

The police chief’s order establishes that Metropolitan Police Department officers may now share information with immigration agencies regarding people not in custody — such as someone involved in a traffic stop or checkpoint. MPD officers may also provide “transportation for federal immigration employees and detained subject,” the order states.

The changes, which raise collaboration between the two forces in notable ways, erodes the district’s long-standing policy against cooperating with civil immigration enforcement. They are effective immediately.

Mayor Muriel Bowser, walking a tightrope between the Republican White House and the constituency of her largely Democratic city, was out of town Thursday for a family commitment in Martha’s Vineyard but would be back Friday, her office said.

In a city tense from days of ramp-up toward federal law enforcement intervention, volunteers helped homeless people leave long-standing encampments — to where, exactly, was often unclear. Trump told reporters that he was pleased at how the operation — and, now, its direct link with his immigration-control efforts — was unfolding.

“That’s a very positive thing, I have heard that just happened,” Trump said of Police Chief Pamela Smith’s order. “That’s a great step. That’s a great step if they’re doing that.”

A boost in police activity, federal and otherwise

For an already wary Washington, Thursday marked a notable — and highly visible — uptick in presence from the previous two days. The visibility of federal forces around the city, including in many high-traffic areas, was striking to residents going about their lives. Trump has the power to take over federal law enforcement for 30 days before his actions must be reviewed by Congress, though he has said he’ll reevaluate as that deadline approaches.

The response before Thursday had been gradual and, by all appearances, low key. But on Wednesday night, officers set up a checkpoint in one of D.C.’s popular nightlife areas, drawing protests. The White House said 45 arrests were made Wednesday night, with 29 people arrested for living in the country illegally; other arrests included for distribution or possession of drugs, carrying a concealed weapon and assaulting a federal officer.

Troops were stationed outside the Union Station transportation hub as the 800 Guard members who have been activated by Trump start in on missions that include monument security, community safety patrols and beautification efforts, the Pentagon said.

“They will remain until law and order has been restored in the District as determined by the president, standing as the gatekeepers of our great nation’s capital,” Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson said. “The National Guard is uniquely qualified for this mission as a community-based force with strong local ties and disciplined training.”

Wilson said the troops won’t be armed and declined to give more details on what the safety patrols or beautification efforts would entail or how many Guard members have already been sent out on the streets.

National Guard Major Micah Maxwell said troops will assist law enforcement in a variety of roles, including traffic control posts and crowd control. The Guard members have been trained in de-escalation tactics and crowd control equipment, Maxwell said.

The White House said Thursday that Guard members aren’t making arrests but are “protecting federal assets, providing a safe environment for law enforcement officers to make arrests and deterring violent crime with a visible law enforcement presence.”

Although the current deployment is taking place under unprecedented circumstances, National Guard troops are a semi-regular presence in D.C., typically being used during mass public events like the annual Fourth of July celebration. They have regularly been used in the past for crowd control in and around Metro stations.

Trump on Thursday denied that the federal law enforcement officials he sent into Washington’s streets to fight crime have been diverted from priority assignments like counterterrorism. Asked if he was concerned about that, Trump said he’s using a “very small force” of soldiers and that city police are now allowed to do their job properly amidst his security lockdown.

For homeless residents, an uncertain time is at hand

Meanwhile, about a dozen homeless residents in Washington packed up their belongings with help from volunteers from charitable groups and staffers from some city agencies. Items largely were not forcibly thrown out by law enforcement, but a garbage truck idled nearby.

Several protesters held signs close by, some critical of the Trump administration. Once the residents had left, a construction vehicle from a city agency cleared through the remains of the tents.

The departures were voluntary, but they came in response to a clear threat from the Trump administration. Advocates expect law enforcement officers to fan out across D.C. in the coming days to forcibly take down any remaining homeless encampments. In Washington Circle, which still contains a few tents, city workers put up signs announcing “general cleanup of this public space” starting at 10 a.m. Monday.

For two days, small groups of federal officers have been visible in scattered parts of the city. But more were present in high-profile locations Wednesday night, and troops were expected to start doing more missions Thursday.

Agents from Homeland Security Investigations have patrolled the popular U Street corridor, while Drug Enforcement Administration officers were seen on the National Mall, with Guard members parked nearby. DEA agents also joined MPD officers on patrol in the Navy Yard neighborhood, while FBI agents stood along the heavily trafficked Massachusetts Avenue.

Khalil writes for the Associated Press. Associated Press journalists Jacquelyn Martin, Mike Pesoli, Darlene Superville and David Klepper contributed to this report.

BALTIMORE — A judge on Wednesday questioned why it was necessary for the Trump administration to sue Maryland’s entire federal bench over an order that paused the immediate deportation of migrants challenging their removals.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen didn’t issue a ruling following a hearing in federal court in Baltimore, but he expressed skepticism about the administration’s extraordinary legal maneuver, which attorneys for the Maryland judges called completely unprecedented.

Cullen serves in the Western District of Virginia, but he was tapped to oversee the Baltimore case because all of Maryland’s 15 federal judges are named as defendants, a highly unusual circumstance that reflects the Republican administration’s aggressive response to courts that slow or stop its policies.

At issue in the lawsuit is an order signed by Chief Maryland District Judge George L. Russell III that prevents the administration from immediately deporting any immigrants seeking review of their detention in a Maryland federal court. The order blocks their removal until 4 p.m. on the second business day after their habeas corpus petition is filed.

The Justice Department, which filed the lawsuit in June, says the automatic pause impedes President Trump’s authority to enforce immigration laws.

But attorneys for the Maryland judges argue that the suit was intended to limit the power of the judiciary to review certain immigration proceedings while the administration pursues a mass deportation agenda.

“The executive branch seeks to bring suit in the name of the United States against a co-equal branch of government,” said Paul Clement, a prominent conservative lawyer who served as Republican President George W. Bush’s solicitor general. “There really is no precursor for this suit.”

Clement listed several other avenues the administration could have taken to challenge the order, such as filing an appeal in an individual habeas case.

Cullen also asked the government’s lawyers whether they had considered that alternative, which he said could have been more expeditious than suing all the judges. He also questioned what would happen if the administration accelerated its current approach and sued a federal appellate bench, or even the Supreme Court.

“I think you probably picked up on the fact that I have some skepticism,” Cullen told Justice Department attorney Elizabeth Themins Hedges when she stood to present the Trump administration’s case.

Hedges denied that the case would “open the floodgates” to similar lawsuits. She said the government is simply seeking relief from a legal roadblock preventing effective immigration enforcement.

“The United States is a plaintiff here because the United States is being harmed,” she said.

Cullen, who was nominated to the federal bench by Trump in 2019, said he would issue a ruling by Labor Day on whether to dismiss the lawsuit. If allowed to proceed, he could also grant the government’s request for a preliminary injunction that would block the Maryland federal bench from following the conditions of the chief judge’s order.

The automatic pause in deportation proceedings sought to maintain existing conditions and the potential jurisdiction of the court, ensure immigrant petitioners are able to participate in court proceedings and access attorneys and give the government “fulsome opportunity to brief and present arguments in its defense,” according to the order.

Russell also said the court had received an influx of habeas petitions after hours that “resulted in hurried and frustrating hearings in that obtaining clear and concrete information about the location and status of the petitioners is elusive.” Habeas petitions allow people to challenge their detention by the government.

The administration accused Maryland judges of prioritizing a regular schedule, saying in court documents that “a sense of frustration and a desire for greater convenience do not give Defendants license to flout the law.”

Among the judges named in the lawsuit is Paula Xinis, who found the administration illegally deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador in March — a case that quickly became a flashpoint in Trump’s immigration crackdown. Abrego Garcia was held in a notorious Salvadoran megaprison, where he claims to have been beaten and tortured.

The administration later brought Abrego Garcia back to the U.S. and charged him with human smuggling in Tennessee. His attorneys characterized the charge as an attempt to justify his erroneous deportation. Xinis recently prohibited the administration from taking Abrego Garcia into immediate immigration custody if he’s released from jail pending trial.

Skene writes for the Associated Press.

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.”

NEW YORK — An executive order signed by President Trump this week aims to give political appointees power over the billions of dollars in grants awarded by federal agencies.

Scientists say it threatens to undermine the process that has helped make the U.S. the world leader in research and development.

The order issued Thursday requires all federal agencies, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health, to appoint officials responsible for reviewing federal funding opportunities and grants, so that they “are consistent with agency priorities and the national interest.”

It also requires agencies to make it so that current and future federal grants can be terminated at any time — including during the grant period.

Agencies cannot announce new funding opportunities until the new protocols are in place, according to the order.

The Trump administration said these changes are part of an effort to “strengthen oversight” and “streamline agency grantmaking.” Scientists say the order will cripple America’s scientific engine by placing control over federal research funds in the hands of people who are influenced by politics and lack relevant expertise.

“This is taking political control of a once politically neutral mechanism for funding science in the U.S.,” said Joseph Bak-Coleman, a scientist studying group decision-making at the University of Washington.

The changes will delay grant review and approval, slowing “progress for cures and treatments that patients and families across the country urgently need,” the Assn. of American Medical Colleges said in a statement.

The administration has already terminated thousands of research grants at agencies such as the NSF and NIH, on topics including transgender health, vaccine hesitancy, misinformation, and diversity, equity and inclusion. It has also threatened funding for scientific research in its battle with prominent universities, including Harvard and UCLA.

The order could affect emergency relief grants doled out by FEMA, public safety initiatives funded by the Department of Justice and public health efforts supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Experts say the order is likely to be challenged in court.

Ramakrishnan writes for the Associated Press.

Hi, and welcome to another edition of Dodgers Dugout. My name is Houston Mitchell. My third grandchild, Paisley, was born this week. Things like that give Brock Stewart pitching poorly the proper perspective.

The Dodgers season was going along just fine. We had grown accustomed to the pitching doing poorly, and being injured, and were just waiting for the start of the postseason. But, no, the Dodgers had to thrown in a new wrinkle: The offense is now terrible too.

So what has happened to the offense? Shohei Ohtani, Mookie Betts, Freddie Freeman and Teoscar Hernández stopped hitting. Max Muncy was injured. It seemed that only Will Smith could still get the key hits when needed.

Let’s take a look at the team’s hitting in July:

Alex Freeland, 1 for 2
Will Smith, .349/.461/.587, 22 for 63, 3 doubles, 4 homers, 7 RBIs, 12 walks, 15 K’s
Michael Conforto, .273/.342/.485, 18 for 66, 5 doubles, 3 homers, 7 RBIs, 6 walks, 15 K’s
Freddie Freeman, .253/.327/.352, 23 for 91, 6 doubles, 1 homer, 13 RBIs, 9 walks, 32 K’s
Miguel Rojas, .250/.361/.481, 13 for 52, 3 doubles, 3 homers, 5 RBIs, 9 walks, 9 K’s
Andy Pages, .247/.299/.382, 22 for 89, 3 doubles, 3 homers, 9 RBIs, 6 walks, 26 K’s
Teoscar Hernández, .232/.284/.362, 3 doubles, 2 homers, 11 RBIs, 5 walks, 20 K’s
Mookie Betts, .205/.261/.325, 17 for 83, 4 doubles, 2 homers, 5 RBIs, 6 walks, 14 K’s
Shohei Ohtani, .204/.321/.505, 19 for 93, 1 double, 9 homers, 19 RBIs, 16 walks, 32 K’s
Hyeseong Kim, .193/.207/.211, 11 for 57, 1 double, 3 RBIs, 1 walk, 24 K’s
Esteury Ruiz, .190/.261/.333, 4 for 21, 1 homer, 2 RBIs, 2 walks, 8 K’s
Dalton Rushing, .179/.200/.214, 5 for 28, 1 double, 2 RBIs, 8 K’s
Tommy Edman, .156/.239/.230, 2 homers, 6 RBIs, 5 walks, 15 K’s
James Outman, .067/.176/.133, 1 for 15, 1 double, 1 walk, 5 K’s
Max Muncy, 0 for 5
Kiké Hernández, 0 for 9
Team, .226/.302/.375, 31 doubles, 30 homers, 80 walks, 226 K’s, 3.79 runs per game

That’s pretty brutal (however, note how well Conforto has been hitting for over a month now). Let’s look at the team rankings in July among the 30 MLB teams:

Batting average: 28th
OB%: 27th
SLG%: 25th
Runs: 28th

They were last in doubles and triples, 15th in home runs.

Things have picked up slightly in August. Freeman is hitting .458 with power, Ohtani is hitting .400, Teoscar is hitting .250 with power. The only one still not hitting is Betts, who is hitting .174 in August. They are only 3-3 in August and are 13-17 over their last 30 games.

Betts is having the worst season of his career, and it’s not even close. Let’s look at his OPS+ each season (remember, OPS+ compares a hitter to the league average. An OPS+ of 120 means the hitters is 20% better than league average, an OPS+ of 80 means they were 30% worse.

2014: 126
2015: 117
2016: 133
2017: 108
2018: 186
2019: 134
2020: 147
2021: 126
2022: 140
2023: 165
2024: 142
2025: 88

His best season, 2018, was the year he won AL MVP with the Red Sox.

With the move to shortstop, the Dodgers have gone from having a perennial Gold Glove and MVP candidate in right field, to an average (at best) fielding, below-average hitter at shortstop. I checked at Baseball Reference, and looked for Dodgers shortstops who had a career OPS+ near 85 and similar fielding stats. The answer: Greg Gagne and Bill Russell.

And, when you think about it, Betts is playing about the same as Russell did, only 50 years later in a much different game.

Betts talked to Times columnist Dylan Hernández before and after Tuesday’s game, and had some interesting quotes. Betts said it wasn’t the position switch or the illness just as the season began that triggered his slump. It started when Betts broke his left hand in June last season.

“I really haven’t been right since I came back from my hand last year,” Betts said. “Think about it. Go and look at it. I haven’t been right since.”

OK, so let’s look at it.

Before his hand was broken, Betts was hitting .304/.405/.488 last season. After that, he hit .263/.314/.497. Lower average, a lot fewer walks, but more power. He hit .290 in the postseason with five doubles and four homers.

Then there’s this season, where he has fallen off a cliff.

There was hope Tuesday when Betts went three for four. But that came on the heels of an 0 for 20 skid, and he followed it up by going one for four Wednesday as the Dodgers lost two of three from the Cardinals.

Betts has continued to work hard to improve, taking extra batting practice and doing anything and everything to get better, so the effort is not in question. And it’s hard to think of a player who was at the level Betts played at who just stopped hitting all of a sudden. There’s usually a gradual decline. Adrián González stopped hitting suddenly, but he wasn’t quite at Betts’ level, and the shift played into that some.

But here’s the thing. When the Dodgers moved Ohtani to the leadoff spot, the reasoning was they wanted to give their best hitter the most at bats. Some didn’t like it, but they won a World Series with Ohtani leading off.

Betts had a .314 on-base percentage last season after his hand was broken. He has a .308 on-base percentage this season. He is batting second. That is not giving the most at bats to your best hitters. It’s time to move Betts down to the bottom half of the order. Dave Roberts isn’t going to do that, but it’s time. For a full season now, Betts’ on-base percentage has been subpar. One of the jobs of your top two hitters is to get on base. And maybe Betts will relax a little lower in the order. Who knows. We’re not in the Dodgers clubhouse every day to get an emotional read on everyone. Maybe moving Betts down would destroy his confidence. I can’t speak intelligently as to those things. But on paper, he needs to move down to sixth or seventh. Maybe try Alex Call in the two spot against lefties. He has a .371 on-base percentage this season and is a guy GM Brandon Gomes called “a grinder.” He works the count. The Dodgers have fallen out of the habit of doing that. Maybe a fresh look at the top of the lineup will get things going again.

Because one thing is for sure. The Padres are looming large in the rear-view mirror. I still believe the Dodgers will make the postseason, but better to do it as a division winner than a wild-card.

But, despite this brutal, no-good, very bad season, keep in mind an important fact:

Last season at this time, the Dodgers were 66-49 and had a three-game lead over San Diego and Arizona in the NL West. They had just gone 11-13 in July and were 3-3 in August at that time. Some readers and fans online were saying this team would never win the World Series.

This season, the Dodgers are 66-49 and have a two-game lead over San Diego in the NL West. They have just gone 10-14 in July and are 3-3 in August. Some readers and fans online are saying this team will never win the World Series.

Check out what Jack Harris has to say about the offense by clicking here.

Notes

—Ohtani got his 1,000th major league hit on Wednesday. 1,405 players have reached the 1,000-hit mark. Remember Amed Rosario, whom the Dodgers acquired via trade twice in the last couple of seasons and then cut loose relatively quickly? He has 1,001 hits (in 100 more at bats).

—Ohtani is on pace for 55 home runs this season, one more than he hit last year. However, he has only 16 steals, compared to 59 last year. That’s what pitching will do. Have to protect those legs.

—Readers ask why Ohtani is striking out so much. Compared to his career norms, he really isn’t (a 1.2% increase). However last season, a magical season for him, was his career low in strikeouts, making this season seem worse than it is. His career high is 189, in 2021 with the Angels. He’s on pace to strike out 192 times this season, but in 100 more plate appearances than in 2021.

—Brock Stewart has given up two runs in 2-2/3 innings with the Dodgers. Apparently they accidentally acquired the 2019 Stewart.

—Roki Sasaki has a three-inning simulated game Friday, after which he could go out on a minor-league rehab assignment.

—The Giants released former Dodgers catcher Austin Barnes, who went eight for 39 (.205) in the minors with them.

—Dustin May made his first start for the Red Sox on Wednesday, giving up three runs in 3-2/3 innings of a loss.

—Max Muncy hit two homers Tuesday, his 19th multi-homer game with the Dodgers, tying him for the most in L.A. Dodgers history with Mike Piazza.

—Muncy has 205 home runs with the Dodgers, fourth in L.A. history behind Eric Karros (270), Ron Cey (228) and Steve Garvey (211). He’s still well off the franchise record, held by Duke Snider (389).

—As far as position player injuries go, Hyeseong Kim could be back soon, while the return date for Tommy Edman and Kiké Hernández remains murky.

—Only 20 pitchers have struck out at least 3,000 batters. Two of them, Max Scherzer and Clayton Kershaw, start against each other Friday. You have to appreciate these moments when they happen.

—The Toronto Blue Jays come to town next. They just scored 45 runs and had 63 hits in a three-game sweep of the Rockies. And yes, the Rockies are historically bad, but still…

Up next

Friday: Toronto (Max Scherzer, 2-1, 4.39 ERA) at Dodgers (*Clayton Kershaw, 5-2, 3.29 ERA), 7:10 p.m., Sportsnet LA, AM 570, KTNQ 1020

Saturday: Toronto (Chris Bassitt, 11-5, 4.12 ERA) at Dodgers (*Blake Snell, 1-1, 3.21 ERA), 6:10 p.m., Sportsnet LA, AM 570, KTNQ 1020

Sunday: Toronto (*Eric Lauer, 7-2, 2.59 ERA) at Dodgers (Yoshinobu Yamamoto, 10-7, 2.51 ERA) 1:10 p.m., Sportsnet LA, AM 570, KTNQ 1020

*-left-handed

In case you missed it

Hernández: Mookie Betts sounds depressed, but he isn’t giving up on snapping his hitting slump

Things are finally turning around for Dodgers’ Roki Sasaki

‘They’ve got to perform better.’ Three Dodger stars who need to heat up at the plate

And finally

In 2004, Adrian Beltré hits a go-ahead grand slam. Watch and listen here.

Until next time…

Have a comment or something you’d like to see in a future Dodgers newsletter? Email me at [email protected], and follow me on Twitter at @latimeshouston. To get this newsletter in your inbox, click here.

The Trump administration petitioned the Supreme Court to free up its mass deportation efforts across Southern California Thursday, seeking to lift a ban on “roving patrols” implemented after a lower court found such tactics likely violate the 4th Amendment.

The restrictions, initially handed down in a July 11 order, bar masked and heavily armed agents from snatching people off the streets of Los Angeles and cities in seven other counties without first establishing reasonable suspicion that they are in the U.S. illegally.

Under the 4th Amendment, reasonable suspicion cannot be based solely on race, ethnicity, language, location or employment, either alone or in combination, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong of Los Angeles found in her original decision.

The Trump administration said in its appeal to the high court that Frimpong’s ruling, upheld last week by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, “threatens to upend immigration officials’ ability to enforce the immigration laws in the Central District of California by hanging the prospect of contempt over every investigative stop.”

Lawyers behind the lawsuits challenging the immigration tactics immediately questioned the Trump administration’s arguments.

“This is unprecedented,” said Mark Rosenbaum of Public Counsel, part of the coalition of civil rights groups and individual attorneys challenging cases of three immigrants and two U.S. citizens swept up in chaotic arrests. “The brief is asking the Supreme Court to bless open season on anybody on Los Angeles who happens to be Latino.”

The move comes barely 24 hours after heavily-armed Border Patrol agents snared workers outside a Westlake Home Depot after popping out of the back of a Penske moving truck — actions some experts said appeared to violate the court’s order.

If the Supreme Court takes up the case, many now think similar aggressive and seemingly indiscriminate enforcement actions could once again become the norm.

“Anything having to do with law enforcement and immigration, the Supreme Court seems to be giving the president free reign,” said Eric J. Segall, a professor at Georgia State University College of Law and a prominent scholar of the country’s highest court. “I think the court is going to side with the Trump administration.”

The Department of Justice has repeatedly argued that the temporary restraining order causes “manifest irreparable harm” to the government. Officials are especially eager to see it overturned because California’s Central District is the single most populous in the country, and home to a plurality of undocumented immigrants.

In its Supreme Court petition, the Justice Department alleged that roughly 10% of the region’s residents are in the U.S. illegally.

“According to estimates from Department of Homeland Security data, nearly 4 million illegal aliens are in California, and nearly 2 million are in the Central District of California. Los Angeles County alone had an estimated 951,000 illegal aliens as of 2019—by far the most of any county in the United States,” the petition said.

President Trump made mass deportations a centerpiece of his 2024 campaign, and has poured billions in federal funding and untold political capital into the arrest, incarceration and removal of migrants. Though DOJ lawyers told the appellate court there was no policy or quota, administration officials and those involved in planing its deportation operations have repeatedly cited 3,000 arrests a day and a million deportations a year as objectives.

District and appellate courts have stalled, blocked, and sometimes reversed many of those efforts in recent weeks, forcing the return of a Maryland father mistakenly deported to Salvadoran prison, compelling the release of student protesters from ICE detention, preserving birthright citizenship for children of immigrant parents and stopping construction of Alligator Alcatraz.

But little of the President’s immigration agenda has so far been tested in the Supreme Court.

If the outcome is unfavorable for Trump, some observers wonder whether he will let the justices limit his agenda.

“Even if they were to lose in the Supreme Court, I have serious doubts they will stop,” Segall said.

Sean “Diddy” Combs will remain in federal custody until he faces sentencing later this year, a judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian on Monday denied the disgraced rapper and music producer’s motion requesting release prior to his sentencing on Oct. 3, The Times has confirmed. Combs has been in federal custody in the Brooklyn Metropolitan Detention Center since his arrest in September. The facility is reportedly notorious for incidents of violence as well as staffing shortages, inmate overcrowding and even power outages.

“Combs fails to satisfy his burden to demonstrate an entitlement to release,” Subramanian said in the order, reviewed by The Times. “The motion for bail is denied.”

A legal representative for Combs, 55, did not immediately respond to The Times’ request for comment.

In his order, Subramanian was unswayed by lawyers’ arguments for Combs’ release including that he shouldn’t be punished for his “swinger” lifestyle; that he’s the target of “ongoing threats of violence” at the MDC; and explanations for his violence against ex-girlfriends Casandra “Cassie” Ventura and Jane, who went by a pseudonym. The two women testified about the musician’s orgies known as “freak-offs” and made allegations about his violent behavior.

Combs’ attorneys urged the release, insisting their client is not a flight risk. The judge, however, didn’t see “clear and convincing evidence” of this or the danger that his lawyers said Combs faced at the prison. Regarding the “squalor and danger” at the facility, Subramanian acknowledged that “public outcry concerning these conditions has come from all corners,” according to the order.

Yet, he wrote, Combs has said that MDC staff have “been able to keep him safe and attend to his needs, even during an incident of threatened violence from an inmate.”

Though Combs was cleared in July of racketeering and sex trafficking, the jury convicted him on two counts of prostitution-related charges. The jury’s split verdict leaves Combs facing up to 10 years in prison for each of the two counts of prostitution.

The denial of bail comes after Combs’ legal team on Sunday submitted a letter from a woman who identified herself as “Victim 3” from the trial. Virginia Huynh wrote in support of the rapper’s release, claiming he had “made visible efforts to become a better person,” according to the letter reviewed by The Times.

She added: “I want to assure the Court that if released, I believe Mr. Combs will adhere to all conditions imposed and will not jeopardize his freedom or the well-being of his family. Allowing him to be at home will also support the healing process for all involved.”

Last week, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, who shows more fealty to President Trump than to the U.S. Constitution she swore to uphold, filed a complaint against the only federal judge who has initiated contempt proceedings against the government for defying his orders.

U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg, she alleged, had undermined the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary by making “improper public comments” about Trump to a group of federal judges that included Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

What is Boasberg alleged to have said?

No transcript has emerged, but according to Bondi’s complaint, at a March session of the Judicial Conference of the United States, Boasberg is alleged to have expressed “a belief that the Trump Administration would ‘disregard rulings of the federal courts’ and trigger ‘a constitutional crisis.’ ”

The Judicial Conference is the perfect place to air such concerns. It is the policy-making body for the federal judiciary, and twice a year about two dozen federal judges, including the Supreme Court chief justice, meet to discuss issues relevant to their work. Recently, for example, they created a task force to deal with threats of physical violence, which have heightened considerably in the Trump era. But nothing that happens in their private sessions could reasonably be construed as “public comments.”

“The Judicial Conference is not a public setting. It’s an internal governing body of the judiciary, and there is no expectation that what gets said is going to be broadcast to the world,” explained former U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel, who spent seven years as director of the Federal Judicial Center in Washington, a kind of think tank for the judiciary. I reached out to Fogel because he is part of a coalition of retired federal judges — the Article III Coalition of the nonpartisan civic education group Keep Our Republic — whose goal is to defend the independence of the judiciary and promote understanding of the rule of law.

Bondi’s complaint accuses Boasberg of attempting to “transform a routine housekeeping agenda into a forum to persuade the Chief Justice and other federal judges of his preconceived belief that the Trump Administration would violate court orders.”

You know how they say that every accusation is a confession in Trump World?

A mere four days after Boasberg raised his concerns to fellow federal judges, the Trump administration defied his order against the deportation of Venezuelans to a prison in El Salvador.

You probably remember that one. A plane carrying the deportees was already in the air, and despite the judge’s ruling, Trump officials refused to order its return. “Oopsie,” tweeted El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele after it landed. “Too late!”

Thus began the administration’s ongoing pattern of ignoring or flouting the courts in cases brought against it. It’s not as if the signs were not there. “He who saves his Country does not violate any law,” Trump wrote on social media in February, paraphrasing Napoleon Bonaparte, the dictatorial 19th century emperor of France.

In June, Erez Reuveni, a career Department of Justice attorney who was fired when he told a Maryland judge the government had deported someone in error, provided documents to Congress that implicated Emil Bove, Trump’s one-time criminal defense attorney, in efforts to violate Boasberg’s order to halt the deportation of the Venezuelans. According to Reuveni’s whistleblower complaint, Bove, who was acting deputy attorney general at the time, said the administration should consider telling judges who order deportations halted, “F— you.”

Bove denied it. And last week, even though other Justice Department whistleblowers corroborated Reuveni’s complaint, Bove was narrowly confirmed by the Senate to a lifetime appointment as a federal appeals court judge.

“The Trump Administration has always complied with all court orders,” wrote Bondi in her complaint against Boasberg. This is laughable.

A July 21 Washington Post analysis found that Trump and his appointees have been credibly accused of flouting court rulings in a third of more than 160 lawsuits against the administration in which a judge has issued a substantive ruling. The cases have involved immigration, and cuts to the federal funding and the federal work force. That record suggests, according to the Post, “widespread noncompliance with America’s legal system.”

Legal experts told the Post that this pattern is unprecedented and is a threat to our system of checks and balances at a moment when the executive branch is asserting “vast powers that test the boundaries of the law and Constitution.”

It’s no secret that Trump harbors autocratic ambitions. He adores Hungarian strongman Viktor Orbán, who has transformed the Hungarian justice system into an instrument of his own will and killed off the country’s independent media. “It’s like we’re twins,” Trump said in 2019, after hosting Orbán at the White House. Trump has teased that he might try to seek an unconstitutional third term. He de-legitimizes the press. His acolytes in Congress will not restrain him. And now he has trained his sights on the independent judiciary urging punishment of judges who thwart his agenda.

On social media, he has implied that Boasberg is “a radical left lunatic,” and wrote, “This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!”

Some of Trump’s lapdogs in the House immediately introduced articles of impeachment (which are likely to go nowhere).

Roberts was moved to rebuke Trump: “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” he said in a statement. “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

Some described his words as “stern.” I found them to be rather mild, considering the damage Trump’s rhetoric inflicts on the well-being of judges.

“It’s part of a longer term pattern of trying to … weaken the ability of the judiciary to put checks on executive power, ” Fogel told me. He is not among those who think we are in a constitutional crisis. Yet.

“Our Constitution has safeguards in it,” Fogel said. “Federal judges have lifetime tenure. We are in a period of Supreme Court jurisprudence that has given the executive a lot of leeway, but I don’t think it’s unlimited.”

I wish I shared his confidence.

Bluesky: @rabcarian
Threads: @rabcarian

California and a coalition of other liberal-led states sued the Trump administration Friday over efforts to end gender-affirming care for transgender, intersex and nonbinary children and young adults nationwide — calling them an unconstitutional attack on LGBTQ+ patients, healthcare providers and states’ rights.

The lawsuit was brought by California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and officials from 15 other states and the District of Columbia. It challenges a Jan. 28 executive order by President Trump that denounced gender-affirming care as “mutilation” and called on U.S. Justice Department officials to effectively enforce a ban, including by launching investigations into healthcare providers.

The lawsuit notes the Justice Department last month sent more than 20 subpoenas to doctors and clinics that have provided such care nationwide, with justice officials suggesting they may face criminal prosecution.

Bonta’s office, in a statement, said such efforts “have no legal basis and are intended to discourage providers from offering lifesaving healthcare that is lawful under state law.” The lawsuit asks a federal court in Massachusetts to vacate Trump’s order in its entirety for exceeding federal authority and undermining state laws that guarantee equal access to healthcare.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday.

Trump made reining in transgender rights a key promise of his presidential campaign. Upon taking office, he moved swiftly to do so through executive orders, funding cuts and litigation. And in many ways, it has worked — particularly when it comes gender-affirming care for minors.

Clinics across the country that had provided such care have closed their doors in response to the threats and funding cuts. That includes the renowned Center for Transyouth Health and Development at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, one of the largest and oldest pediatric gender clinics in the U.S.

The clinic told thousands of its patients and their families that it was shuttering last month. Other clinics have similarly closed nationwide, radically reducing the availability of such care in the U.S.

Republicans and other Trump supporters have cheered the closures as a major win, and they praised the president for protecting impressionable and confused children from so-called woke medical professionals pushing what they allege to be dangerous and irreversible treatments.

Bonta said in the Friday statement that Trump and his administration’s “relentless attacks” on such care were “cruel and irresponsible” and endangered “already vulnerable adolescents whose health and well-being are at risk.”

“These actions have created a chilling effect in which providers are pressured to scale back on their care for fear of prosecution, leaving countless individuals without the critical care they need and are entitled to under law,” Bonta said.

Mainstream U.S. medical associations have supported gender-affirming care for minors experiencing gender dysphoria for years. They and LGBTQ+ rights organizations have accused Trump and his supporters of mischaracterizing that care, which includes therapy, counseling and support for social transitioning, and can include puberty blockers, hormone treatment and, in rarer circumstances, mastectomies.

Queer advocates, many patients and their families say such care is life-saving, alleviating intense distress — and suicidal thoughts — in transgender and other gender-nonconforming youth. They and many mainstream medical experts acknowledge that gender-affirming care for young people is still a developing field, but say it is also based on decades of solid research by medical professionals who are far better equipped than politicians to help families make difficult medical decisions.

However, as the number of children who identify as transgender or nonbinary has rapidly increased in recent years, that argument has failed to take hold in many parts of the country. Conservatives and Republican leaders have grown increasingly alarmed by such care, pointing to young people who changed their minds about transitioning and now regret the care they received.

“Countless children soon regret that they have been mutilated and begin to grasp the horrifying tragedy that they will never be able to conceive children of their own or nurture their children through breastfeeding,” Trump’s executive order stated.

Trump and others have escalated tensions further by spreading misinformation about kids being whisked away from school to have their gentials mutilated without their parents’ knowledge — which is not happening.

The battle has played out in the courts, in part as a state’s rights issue. In June, the Supreme Court ruled that conservative states may ban puberty blockers and hormone treatments for transgender teens, with the court’s conservative majority finding that states are generally free to set their own standards of medical care.

The Trump administration, however, has not taken the same view. Instead, it has aggressively tried to eradicate gender-affirming care nationwide, regardless of state laws — like those in California — that protect it.

Trump’s Jan. 28 executive order, titled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation,” claimed that “medical professionals are maiming and sterilizing a growing number of impressionable children under the radical and false claim that adults can change a child’s sex through a series of irreversible medical interventions.”

It defined children as anyone under the age of 19, and said that moving forward, the U.S. wouldn’t “fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called ‘transition’ of a child from one sex to another,” but would “rigorously enforce all laws that prohibit or limit these destructive and life-altering procedures.”

The states’ lawsuit focuses on one particular section of that order, which directed Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi to convene state attorneys general and other law enforcement officials nationwide to begin investigating gender-affirming care providers and other groups that “may be misleading the public about long-term side effects of chemical and surgical mutilation.”

The section suggested those investigations could be based on laws against “female genital mutilation,” or even around a 1938 law known as the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which authorizes the Food and Drug Administration to regulate food, drugs, medical devices and cosmetics.

On July 9, Bondi announced the Justice Department’s subpoenas to healthcare providers, saying doctors and hospitals “that mutilated children in the service of a warped ideology will be held accountable.”

On July 25, The Times reported that Bill Essayli, the Trump administration’s controversial pick for U.S. attorney in L.A., had floated the idea of criminally charging doctors and hospitals for providing gender-affirming care, according to two federal law enforcement sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal.

The targeting of gender-affirming care is part of a wider effort by the administration to eliminate transgender rights more broadly, in part on the premise that transgender people do not exist. On his first day in office, Trump issued another executive order declaring there are only two sexes and denouncing what he called the “gender ideology” of the left.

His administration has sought to limit the options transgender people have to get passports that reflect their identities, and the Justice Department has sued California over its policies allowing transgender girls to compete against other girls in youth sports. Many transgender Americans are looking for ways to flee the country.

Still, many in the LGBTQ+ community fear the attacks are only going to get worse. Among those who are most scared are the parents and families of transgender kids — including those who believe their health records may have been collected under the Justice Department’s subpoenas.

One mother of a Children’s Hospital patient told The Times last month that she is terrified the Justice Department is “going to come after parents and use the female genital mutilation law … to prosecute parents and separate me from my child.”

Bonta is leading the lawsuit along with the attorneys general of Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts and New York. Joining them are Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and the attorneys general of Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Wisconsin.

July 31 (UPI) — President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday alongside his professional athlete friends to bring back the Presidential Fitness Test in schools.

The executive order signing event hosted golfer Bryson DeChambeau, Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker, former New York Giants linebacker Lawrence Taylor, retired champion golfer Annika Sorenstam and Paul “Triple H” Levesque of World Wrestling Entertainment.

In Trump’s second term, the United States will host the 2025 Ryder Cup, 2026 FIFA World Cup and the 2028 Summer Olympics.

DeChambeau will chair the President’s Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition, the White House confirmed. He is a friend of Trump and has been seen on the campaign trail with him.

The order advises the council to create school-based programs that reward achievements in physical education. It will also reestablish the Presidential Fitness Test, first created in 1966 and was administered in public middle and high schools. The test was replaced in 2013 with the Presidential Youth Fitness Program, which touted living an active and healthy lifestyle.

Other sports issues in the president’s second term have been to demand the NFL’s Washington Commanders to change their name back to the Redskins and to issue an executive order banning transgender women in women’s sports.

Former President Barack Obama killed the test in 2012 and replaced it with an assessment called the FitnessGram focused on improving individual health.

“President Trump wants every young American to have the opportunity to emphasize healthy, active lifestyles — creating a culture of strength and excellence for years to come,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told CNN in a statement.

WASHINGTON — President Trump signed an executive order Wednesday to impose his threatened 50% tariffs on Brazil, setting a legal rationale that Brazil’s policies and criminal prosecution of former President Jair Bolsonaro constitute an economic emergency under a 1977 law.

Trump had threatened the tariffs July 9 in a letter to President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. But the legal basis of that threat was an earlier executive order premised on trade imbalances being a threat to the U.S. economy. But America ran a $6.8 billion trade surplus last year with Brazil, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

A statement by the White House said Brazil’s judiciary had tried to coerce social media companies and block their users, though it did not name the companies involved, X and Rumble.

Trump appears to identify with Bolsonaro, who attempted to overturn the results of his 2022 loss to Lula. Similarly, Trump was indicted in 2023 for his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 U.S. presidential election.

The order would apply an additional 40% tariff on the baseline 10% tariff already being levied by Trump. But not all goods imported from Brazil would face the 40% tariff: Civil aircraft and parts, aluminum, tin, wood pulp, energy products and fertilizers are among the products being excluded.

The order said the tariffs would go into effect seven days after its signing on Wednesday.

Also Wednesday, Trump’s Treasury Department announced sanctions on Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes over alleged suppression of freedom of expression and Bolsonaro’s ongoing trial.

De Moraes oversees the criminal case against Bolsonaro, who is accused of masterminding a plot to stay in power despite his 2022 defeat.

On July 18, the State Department announced visa restrictions on Brazilian judicial officials, including de Moraes.

Boak writes for the Associated Press.

Gov. Gavin Newsom plans to issue an executive order Wednesday allowing Los Angeles-area governments to limit development in wildfire-affected neighborhoods by exempting them from provisions of a landmark housing law, a spokesperson for his office said.

The proposed order would let the city and county of Los Angeles and Malibu restrict construction that was allowed under Senate Bill 9, a 2021 law that allows property owners build as many as four units on land previously reserved for single-family homes.

The order would apply to Pacific Palisades and parts of Malibu and Altadena — areas that burned in January’s Palisades and Eaton fires that are designated as “very high fire hazard severity zones” by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Newsom spokesperson Tara Gallegos said.

The decision came after concerns about the potential of a significant population increase if there were widespread use of SB 9 developments in rebuilding areas, making future fire evacuations even more difficult, Gallegos said.

The governor’s plan follows pressure this week from elected officials in Los Angeles. On Monday, City Councilmember Traci Park, who represents Pacific Palisades, sent a letter to Newsom requesting that he suspend SB 9, warning that otherwise there could be “an unforeseen explosion of density” in a risky area.

“When SB 9 was adopted into state law, it was never intended to capitalize on a horrific disaster,” Park wrote.

On Tuesday, L.A. Mayor Karen Bass released a statement supporting Park’s request, citing similar concerns about SB 9 straining evacuation routes and local infrastructure in the Palisades.

“It could fundamentally alter the safety of the area,” Bass said.

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department on Monday filed a misconduct complaint against the federal judge who has clashed with President Trump’s administration over deportations to a notorious prison in El Salvador.

Escalating the administration’s conflict with U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said on social media that she directed the filing of the complaint against Boasberg “for making improper public comments about President Trump and his administration.”

The complaint stems from remarks Boasberg allegedly made in March to Chief Justice John Roberts and other federal judges saying the administration would trigger a constitutional crisis by disregarding federal court rulings, according to a copy of the complaint obtained by the Associated Press.

The comments “have undermined the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary,” the complaint says, adding that the administration has “always complied with all court orders.” Boasberg is among several judges who have questioned whether the administration has complied with their orders.

The meeting took place days before Boasberg issued an order blocking deportation flights that Trump was carrying out by invoking wartime authorities from an 18th century law.

The judge’s verbal order to turn around planes that were on the way to El Salvador was ignored. Boasberg has since found probable cause that the administration committed contempt of court.

The comments were supposedly made during a meeting of the Judicial Conference, the federal judiciary’s governing body. The remarks were first reported by the conservative website The Federalist, which said it obtained a memo summarizing the meeting.

Boasberg, the chief judge in the district court in the nation’s capital, is a member of the Judicial Conference. Its meetings are not public.

The complaint calls for an investigation, the reassignment of the deportations case to another judge while the inquiry is ongoing and sanctions, including the possible recommendation of impeachment, if the investigation substantiates the allegations.

Trump himself already has called for Boasberg’s impeachment, which in turn prompted a rare response from Roberts rejecting the call.

The complaint was filed with Judge Sri Srinivasan, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

More than 250 Venezuelans who were deported to a Salvadoran mega-prison known as the Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT, were sent home to Venezuela earlier this month in a deal that also free 10 U.S. citizens and permanent residents who had been held by Venezuela.

But the lawsuit over the deportations and the administration’s response to Boasberg’s order remains in his court.

Sherman writes for the Associated Press.

President Trump has the answer to homelessness.

Forcibly clear the streets.

On Thursday, he signed an executive order to address “endemic vagrancy” and end “crime and disorder on our streets.” He called for the use of “civil commitments” to get those who suffer from mental illness or addiction into “humane treatment.”

Steve Lopez

Steve Lopez is a California native who has been a Los Angeles Times columnist since 2001. He has won more than a dozen national journalism awards and is a four-time Pulitzer finalist.

This comes after last year’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling making it legal for cities to punish people for being homeless, even if they have nowhere to go.

There’s some truth in what he says, and California’s record on housing and homelessness is ripe for criticism. I’ve watched too many people suffer from addiction and mental illness and asked why the help is so slow to arrive. But I also know there are no simple answers for either crisis, and bluster is no substitute for desperately needed resources.

Like a lot of what Trump does, this is another case of grandstanding. In the meantime, the Washington Post reported Thursday that the “Trump administration has slashed more than $1 billion in COVID-era grants administered by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and is proposing to slash hundreds of millions more in agency grants.”

Wendell Blassingame sits at the entrance to San Julian Park in downtown Los Angeles in 2023.

(Wally Skalij/Los Angeles Times)

As it happens, I was in the middle of a column on the latest Los Angeles homeless count when news of Trump’s executive order broke. I had just spent time with two homeless women to hear about their predicaments, and none of what Trump is proposing comes close to addressing their needs, which are tragically commonplace.

Namely, they’re living in poverty and can’t afford a place to live.

In his executive order, Trump said that “nearly two-thirds of homeless individuals report having used hard drugs … in their lifetimes. An equally large share of homeless individuals reported suffering from mental health conditions.”

I don’t know where he got those numbers, but truth and accuracy are not hallmarks of this administration.

No doubt, addiction and mental illness are significant factors, and more intervention is needed.

But that’s more complicated than he thinks, especially given the practical and legal issues surrounding coercive treatment — and it’s not going to solve the problem.

When the latest homeless count in Los Angeles was released, a slight decline from a year ago was regarded by many as a positive sign. But when Eli Veitzer of Jewish Family Service L.A. dug into the numbers, he found something both unsurprising and deeply disturbing.

The number of homeless people 65 and older hadn’t gone down. It had surged, in both the city and county of Los Angeles.

“This isn’t new this year. It’s a trend over the last couple of years,” said Veitzer, whose nonprofit provides meals, housing assistance and various other services to clients. “It’s meaningful, and it’s real, and these people are at the highest risk of mortality while they’re on the streets.”

The numbers from the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority showed a 3.4% decrease in the total homeless population in the city, but a 17.6% increase among those 65 and older. The county numbers showed a 3.99% decrease overall, but an 8.59% increase in the 65 and older group.

In the city, the increase over two years was from 3,427 in 2023 to 4,680 this year — up 37%.

Reliable research has shown that among older adults who become homeless, the primary reason is the combination of poverty and high housing costs, rather than mental illness or addiction.

A man smokes inside a tent on Los Angeles’ Skid Row in March 2020.

(Marcio Jose Sanchez / Associated Press)

“They or their spouse lost their job, they or their spouse got sick, their marriage broke up or their spouse or parent died,” Dr. Margot Kushel of UC San Francisco’s Homelessness and Housing Initiative was telling me several hours before Trump’s executive order was issued.

Her team’s landmark study, released two years ago (and covered by my colleague Anita Chabria), found that nearly half the state’s homeless residents were 50 and older, and that participants in the study reported a median monthly household income of $960.

“The results … confirm that far too many Californians experience homelessness because they cannot afford housing,” Kushel said at the time.

Among the older population, Veitzer said, the jump in homelessness comes against the backdrop of federal and local budget cuts that will make it harder to reverse the trend. And harder for nonprofits, which rely in part on public funding, to keep providing group meals, home-delivered meals, transportation, social services and housing support.

“Every provider I’ve talked to in the city of L.A. is cutting meal programs,” Veitzer said. “We’re going to have to close two of our 13 meal sites, and last year we closed three. We used to have 16, and now we’re down to 11.”

On Wednesday, I went to one of the sites that’s still up and running on Santa Monica Boulevard, just west of the 405, and met Jane Jefferies, 69. She told me she’s been camping in her vehicle since February when living with her brother became impossible for various reasons. She now pulls into a Safe Parking L.A. lot each night to bed down.

Jefferies said she collects about $1,400 a month in Social Security, which isn’t enough to get her into an apartment. At the senior center, she uses her own equipment to make buttons that she sells on the Venice boardwalk, where she can make up to $200 on a good weekend.

But that’s still not enough to cover the cost of housing, she told me, and she’s given up on government help.

“All the funding has been cut, and I don’t know if it’s because a lot of the city and state funding is subsidized by the federal government. We all know Trump hates California,” she said.

As Veitzer put it: “There’s nowhere near enough low-income senior housing in L.A. County. Wait lists open up periodically,” with far more applicants than housing units. “And then they close.”

His agency delivers a daily meal to Vancie Davis, 73, who lives in a van at Penmar Park in Venice. Her next-door neighbor is her son, Thomas Williamson, 51, who lives in his car.

Davis was in the front seat of the van when I arrived, hugging her dog, Heart. Her left leg was amputated below the knee two years ago because of an infection, she told me.

Davis said she and another son were living in a trailer in Oregon, but the owner shut off the utilities and changed the locks. She said she reached out to Williamson, who told her, “I’ve got a van for you, so you’ll have a place to live, but it’s going to be rough. And it is. It’s very, very rough.”

I’ve heard so many variations of stories like these over the years, I’ve lost count.

The magnitude that exists in the wealthiest nation in history is a disgrace, and a sad commentary on an economic system and public policy that have served to widen, rather than narrow, the inequity gap.

On Thursday, Trump’s executive order on homelessness grabbed headlines but will do nothing for Jane Jefferies or Vancie Davis and for thousands like them. We know the interventions that can work, Kushel said, but with deep cuts in the works, we’re moving in the wrong direction.

Davis’ son Thomas told Times photographer Genaro Molina about another person who lives in a vehicle and has been a neighbor of theirs in the parking lot.

She wasn’t there Wednesday, but we’ll check back.

It’s a 91-year-old woman.

[email protected]