order

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]

While “60 Minutes” will soon have a new owner, the CBS newsmagazine’s next executive producer is coming from inside the family.

Tanya Simon, a 25-year veteran of the program, will take on the role vacated by Bill Owens in April. She has served as interim executive producer since his departure.

She is the daughter of the late Bob Simon, one of the best known correspondents during the program’s 57 year history.

Changes at the top of “60 Minutes” have been rare. Simon will be only the fourth executive producer in the program’s history and the first woman.

Simon’s appointment will be a relief to the program’s staff, where morale has been rocked by parent company Paramount Global’s battle with President Trump. The correspondents of the program signed a letter to company co-chairman George Cheeks urging him to give Simon the job.

Simon will have the backing of her colleagues who are thankful they won’t be dealing with an outsider who might not value the program’s editorial rigor and independence. But she will be faced with the challenge of navigating the operation after one of the most difficult periods in its history.

Paramount Global agreed to pay $16 million to settle Trump’s lawsuit against “60 Minutes” over the editing of an interview with his 2024 opponent, then-Vice President Kamala Harris. Trump claimed the interviews was deceptively edited to aid Harris in the election.

The case was labeled as frivolous by 1st Amendment experts and the settlement widely seen as a capitulation to Trump in order to clear a path for Paramount’s $8-billion merger with David Ellison’s Skydance Media.

While “60 Minutes” did not issue an apology or acknowledge any wrongdoing, the program is likely to face intense scrutiny going forward. Critics will be looking for signs of the program pulling its punches in reporting on Trump. In order to clear the Paramount Global deal with the FCC, Skydance has agreed to name a news division ombudsman that will report to the company’s president for at least the next two years.

“Tanya Simon understands what makes ’60 Minutes’ tick,” CBS News President Tom Cibrowski said in. a statement “She is an innovative leader, an exceptional producer, and someone who knows how to inspire people,” “

Simon got her start at CBS News in 1996 as a researcher for its other newsmagazine “48 Hours.” She joined “60 Minutes” in 2000, working with correspondent Ed Bradley on a variety of reports including the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. She went on to produce for nearly all of the program’s correspondents including her father.

Her work has earned virtually every major broadcast honor, including multiple Emmy Awards, the Peabody and the DuPont-Columbia Award.

States no longer employ war as a tool to achieve their goals. Preferring to utilize more peaceful methods, states employ it to pursue highly consequential objectives. BRICS serves as a manifestation of this notion. The emergence of BRICS increasingly challenges the Global North. The establishment of this cooperation reflects the efforts of the Global South to alter the global order and break free from the long-standing dominance of the Global North.

BRICS represents more than a symbol of cooperation. It is actively engaged in a geopolitical chessboard that shapes today’s global economy. Gradually yet steadily, it is shifting the global balance of power through the strength it has accumulated. This is evident in the growing interest among developing countries to join the group.

Led by two major powers perceived as threats to the Global North, China and Russia hold substantial leadership roles. China dominates the global economic landscape and poses a challenge not only to the United States but also to Europe. The European Union consistently asserts that China is a rival in the renewable energy sector, particularly in electric vehicles. Russia, on the other hand, holds significant energy leverage over Europe and poses a geopolitical challenge to NATO, which is led by the United States. The development of this cooperation is further reinforced by the accession of strategically significant global actors such as Iran and the United Arab Emirates, with their vast oil reserves; Ethiopia, with its port access; and Egypt, with its strategic geographic position in relation to the West.
The inclusion of these countries further destabilizes the seemingly absolute dominance of the Global North.

Power has long been synonymous with the realist approach, which is grounded in strength.
However, the definition of strength and power has evolved. Power is no longer solely defined in terms of military capability or weaponry. In today’s global context, power is also measured by a state’s influence in shaping the rules of the game. Cooperation serves as the foundation of this new form of power.

BRICS leverages this expanded notion of power and influence. It builds coalitions to undermine dominance not by overt force, but by subtly shifting the balance—leaving its opponents unaware that a transformation is underway. BRICS undoubtedly presents a substantial challenge to the Global North’s dominance. In response, Western countries have adopted equally measured diplomatic strategies aimed at undermining BRICS from within.

During a G7 summit, former U.S. President Donald Trump expressed regret over Russia’s removal from the G7 following its annexation of Crimea in 2014.

“I would say that was a mistake, because I think you wouldn’t have a war right now if Russia were still in, and you wouldn’t have a war right now if Trump had been president four years ago.”

Trump also did not object to the possibility of China joining the G7, stating:

“Well, it’s not a bad idea. I don’t mind that. If someone wants to suggest China joining, I think we should suggest it, but you want people you can talk to,” he added.

At first glance, these remarks appear to suggest a constructive approach to U.S.–China relations. However, upon closer examination, they may be interpreted as part of a broader strategic effort to weaken U.S. involvement in China’s global agenda.

This statement illustrates the extent to which the Global North powers are monitoring and responding to the actions of two principal BRICS members—China and Russia—as part of their efforts to undermine alliances among the Global South countries. Beyond these two core members, the G7 extended invitations to three strategically important BRICS countries—India, South Africa, and Brazil—to attend the forum as guest participants. This move represents a calculated geopolitical effort by the Global North to engage selectively with the Global South actors on the international stage.

In early July 2025, BRICS convened a summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, from 6–7 July. The summit was attended by all member states, including Indonesia as the newest addition to the group. Amid widespread global instability, the summit focused on pressing international issues, particularly those concerning the global economy and sanctions imposed by the United States. The meeting also addressed and condemned the Israel–U.S. military action against Iran, characterizing it as a violation of international law. These discussions served to foster a shared perspective and unity among BRICS members, with the expressed objective of challenging and dismantling systemic dominance.

The global chessboard, once governed exclusively by the most powerful Global North actors, is now being gradually redefined by emerging powers. These new actors, having grown weary of external direction, are seeking to establish their own platforms for influence and victory.

In conclusion, cooperation may serve as a strategic instrument for gaining power—one that cannot be easily condemned by any state. It represents the power to shape a new world order. Moreover, cooperation can also function as a tool for existing powers to engage with emerging actors and potentially undermine them from within the very system those new actors have established. Thus, cooperation in this context is not merely a symbol of unity but a form of conflict—one that is waged without conventional weaponry or the noise of warfare, yet still aimed at securing or contesting global dominance. Whether that dominance is preserved or overtaken remains the central struggle.

Lawyers for Kilmar Abrego Garcia have asked a federal judge in Tennessee to delay releasing him from jail in order to prevent the Trump administration from trying to swiftly deport the Maryland construction worker.

U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw Jr. in Nashville is expected to rule soon on whether to free Abrego Garcia while he awaits trial on human smuggling charges. If the Salvadoran national is released, U.S. officials have said he would be immediately detained by immigration authorities and targeted for deportation.

Abrego Garcia became a prominent face in the debate over President Trump’s immigration policies when he was wrongfully deported to his native El Salvador in March. That expulsion violated a U.S. immigration judge’s order in 2019 that shields Abrego Garcia from deportation to El Salvador because he likely faces threats of gang violence there.

The administration claimed that Abrego Garcia was in the MS-13 gang, although he wasn’t charged and has repeatedly denied the allegation. Facing mounting pressure and a U.S. Supreme Court order, the Trump administration returned Abrego Garcia to the U.S. last month to face the smuggling charges, which his attorneys have called “preposterous.”

The smuggling case stems from a 2022 traffic stop for speeding, during Abrego Garcia was driving a vehicle with nine passengers. Police in Tennessee suspected human smuggling, but he was allowed to drive on.

U.S. officials have said they’ll try to deport Abrego Garcia to a country that isn’t El Salvador, such as Mexico or South Sudan, before his trial starts in January because they allege he’s a danger to the community.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes in Nashville ruled a month ago that Abrego Garcia is eligible for release after she determined he’s not a flight risk or a danger. Abrego Garcia’s attorneys asked her to keep him in jail over deportation concerns.

Holmes’ ruling is being reviewed by Crenshaw after federal prosecutors filed a motion to revoke her release order.

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys initially argued for his release but changed their strategy because of the government’s plans to deport him if he is set free. With Crenshaw’s decision imminent, Abrego Garcia’s attorneys filed a motion Sunday night for a 30-day stay of any release order. The request would allow Abrego Garcia to “evaluate his options and determine whether additional relief is necessary.”

Earlier this month, U.S. officials detailed their plans to try to expel Abrego Garcia in a federal court in Maryland. That’s where Abrego Garcia’s American wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, is suing the Trump administration over his wrongful deportation in March and is trying to prevent another expulsion.

U.S. officials have argued that Abrego Garcia can be deported because he came to the U.S. illegally around 2011 and because a U.S. immigration judge deemed him eligible for expulsion in 2019, although not to his native El Salvador.

Following the immigration judge’s decision in 2019, Abrego Garcia was released under federal supervision, received a federal work permit and checked in with ICE each year, his attorneys have said. But U.S. officials recently stated in court documents that they revoked Abrego Garcia’s supervised release.

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys in Maryland have asked U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis to order the federal government to send Abrego Garcia to that state to await his trial, a bid that seeks to prevent deportation.

His lawyers also asked Xinis to issue at least a 72-hour hold that would prevent immediate deportation if he’s released from jail in Tennessee. Xinis has not ruled on either request.

Finley writes for the Associated Press.

Thousands of leaflets dropped over Deir el-Balah, ordering Palestinians to move to a ‘safe zone’ Israel has repeatedly bombed.

The Israeli military has issued a new forced evacuation warning for the Palestinians in central Gaza, ordering them to move south to al-Mawasi, an area Israel has regularly attacked despite declaring it a “safe zone”.

Thousands of leaflets were dropped over Deir el-Balah on Sunday, telling displaced families living in tents in several densely populated parts of the city to leave immediately.

The Israeli military warned of imminent action against Hamas fighters in the area as it continued its deadly attacks on unarmed and starving civilians desperately looking for food, killing dozens of Palestinians on Sunday, at least 73 of them aid seekers in northern Gaza.

In a post on X, the military’s Arabic-language spokesman Avichay Adraee said residents and displaced Palestinians sheltering in the Deir el-Balah area should leave immediately.

Israel was “expanding its activities” around Deir el-Balah, including “in an area where it has not operated before”, Adraee said, telling Palestinians to “move south towards the al-Mawasi area” on the Mediterranean coast “for your safety”.

A video verified by Al Jazeera showed the Israeli army dropping vast amounts of leaflets over residential areas in Deir el-Balah, notifying Palestinians of the order.

‘Nowhere else to go’

Al Jazeera’s Hind Khoudary, reporting from Deir el-Balah, said the area targeted by Israel is densely populated and it would be “impossible” for the affected residents to leave on short notice.

“Palestinians here are refusing to leave and say they are going to stay in their houses because even the areas designated as safe by the Israeli army have been targeted,” she said.

“Palestinians say they have nowhere else to go, and there is no space because most western areas or even al-Mawasi are full of people and tents with no more extra space for expansion. They are left with zero options.”

The Israeli military issued the warning as Israel and Hamas held indirect ceasefire talks in Qatar, but international mediators said there have been no breakthroughs.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly stressed that expanding Israeli military operations in Gaza will pressure Hamas to negotiate, but negotiations have been stalled for months.

This month, the Israeli military said it controlled more than 65 percent of the Gaza Strip.

Most of Gaza’s population of more than two million people has been displaced at least once during the war, which is now in its 22nd month. Israel has repeatedly ordered Palestinians to leave or face attacks in large parts of the coastal enclave.

The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs said in January that more than 80 percent of the Gaza Strip was under unrevoked Israeli evacuation threats and many of their residents were living with starvation.

A 35-day-old baby in Gaza City and a four-month-old child in Deir el-Balah died of malnutrition at Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital this weekend.

On Saturday, at least 116 Palestinians were killed, many of them aid seekers trying to get food from distribution sites run by the Israeli- and United States-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF).

At least 900 Palestinians desperate to find food have been killed at the sites since the GHF began operating them in late May as an Israeli blockade has prevented food and other necessities from the UN and other aid groups from coming into Gaza.

The genocide has prompted Pope Leo XIV to denounce the “barbarity” of the war as he urged against the “indiscriminate use of force”.

“I once again ask for an immediate end to the barbarity of the war and for a peaceful resolution to the conflict,” Leo said during a prayer meeting near Rome on Sunday.

BOSTON — President Trump’s plan to end birthright citizenship for the children of people who are in the U.S. illegally will remain blocked as an order from one judge went into effect Friday and another seemed inclined to follow suit.

U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire had paused his own decision to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, but with no appeal filed in the last week his order went into effect.

“The judge’s order protects every single child whose citizenship was called into question by this illegal executive order,” said Cody Wofsy, the ACLU attorney representing children who would be affected by Trump’s restrictions. “The government has not appealed and has not sought emergency relief so this injunction is now in effect everywhere in the country.”

The Trump administration could still appeal or even ask that LaPlante’s order be narrowed, but the effort to end birthright citizenship for children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally or temporarily can’t take effect for now.

The Justice Department didn’t immediately return a message seeking comment.

Meanwhile, a judge in Boston heard arguments from more than a dozen states who say Trump’s birthright citizenship order is blatantly unconstitutional and threatens millions of dollars for essential services. The issue is expected to move quickly back to the nation’s highest court.

U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin was asked to consider either keeping in place the nationwide injunction he granted earlier or consider a request from the government either to narrow the scope of that order or stay it altogether. Sorokin, located in Boston, did not immediately rule but seemed to be receptive to arguments from states to keep the injunction in place.

Lawyers for the government had argued Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting a preliminary injunction, arguing it should be “tailored to the States’ purported financial injuries.”

Much of the hearing was focused on what a narrower ruling would look like. The plaintiffs raised concerns that some alternatives floated by the Trump administration — such as giving children in states affected by the birthright citizenship order Social Security numbers, but not citizenship — would be costly and unworkable.

They said such a system would burden these states with having to set up new administrative systems, sow confusion among the parents whose children are affected and possibly turn these states into magnets for families from other states looking to access the benefits.

Government lawyers didn’t seem tied to any one alternative, but told Sorokin the scope of his injunction should be limited. When pressed on how they would do that, a lawyer for the government, Eric Hamilton, would only commit to complying with whatever order was issued.

“If the court modifies the preliminary injunction or stays the preliminary injunction, it should be at most tailored to injuries plaintiffs are alleging, which are primary financial,” Hamilton said.

Sorokin pushed back, at one point using an analogy of someone who sued a neighbor over loud music. The defendant offers to build a wall to limit the noise but Sorokin wondered how they could ensure it met the zoning code and was something the defendant could afford.

“What you are telling me is we will do it but, in response to my question, you have no answer how you will do it,” Sorokin said.

LaPlante issued the ruling last week prohibiting Trump’s executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit, and a Maryland-based judge said this week that she would do the same if an appeals court signed off.

The justices ruled last month that lower courts generally can’t issue nationwide injunctions, but it didn’t rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional.

At the heart of the lawsuits is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. That decision found that Scott, an enslaved man, wasn’t a citizen despite having lived in a state where slavery was outlawed.

The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.

Casey writes for the Associated Press.

There have been numerous legal challenges to President Trump’s immigration sweeps across California that have led to at least 3,000 arrests.

But one lawsuit has the potential to dramatically alter the policy.

The ruling

A coalition of civil rights groups and private attorneys sued the federal government, challenging the cases of three immigrants and two U.S. citizens swept up in chaotic arrests that have sparked widespread protests since early June.

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, an appointee of President Biden, temporarily blocked federal agents in the Southland from using racial profiling to carry out immigration arrests after she found sufficient evidence that agents were using race, a person’s job or their location, and their language to form “reasonable suspicion” — the legal standard needed to detain an individual.

Frimpong ruled that using race, ethnicity, language, accent, location or employment as a pretext for immigration enforcement is forbidden by the 4th Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.

The order covers Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties.

The judge also ordered that all those in custody at a downtown detention facility known as B-18 must be given 24-hour access to lawyers and a confidential phone line.

On Monday, the administration asked a federal appeals court to stay the judge’s order blocking the roving patrols, allowing it to resume raids across the seven California counties.

“It is untenable for a district judge to single-handedly ‘restructure the operations’ of federal immigration enforcement,” the appeal argued. “This judicial takeover cannot be allowed to stand.”

What experts are saying

Legal experts say it’s hard to say just how successful the federal government will be in getting a stay on the temporary order, given the current political climate.

“This is different from a lot of the other kinds of Trump litigation because the law is so clear in the fact finding by the district court,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law. “So if you follow basic legal principles, this is a very weak case for the government on appeal, but it’s so hard to predict what will happen because everything is so ideological.”

In the past, legal scholars say, it would be extremely uncommon for an appeals court to weigh in on such an order. But recent events suggest it’s not out of the realm of possibility.

Courts have backed Trump’s immigration policies in other cases.

• In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of allowing the federal government to deport convicted criminals to “third countries” even if they lack a prior connection to those countries.
• That same month, it also ruled 6 to 3 to limit the ability of federal district judges to issue nationwide orders blocking the president’s policies, which was frequently a check on executive power.
• In June, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided to leave troops in Los Angeles in the hands of the Trump administration while California’s objections are litigated in federal court, finding the president had broad — though not “unreviewable” — authority to deploy the military in American cities. California had sued against the deployment.

It’s not an easy case for the government, said Ahilan Arulanantham, professor of practice and co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at the UCLA School of Law.

“I think one thing which makes this case maybe a little bit harder for the government than some of the other shadow docket cases is it really does affect citizens in an important way,” he said. “Obviously the immigration agent doesn’t know in advance when they come up to somebody whether they’re a citizen or a noncitizen or if they’re lawfully present or not.”

What is next?

The Frimpong ruling is now on appeal.

The plaintiffs argued in their complaint that immigration agents cornered brown-skinned people in Home Depot parking lots, at car washes and at bus stops across Southern California in a show of force without establishing reasonable suspicion that they had violated immigration laws. They allege agents didn’t identify themselves, as required under federal law, and made unlawful arrests without warrants.

Government lawyers argued in their motion that “ethnicity can be a factor supporting reasonable suspicion in appropriate circumstances — for instance, if agents are acting on a tip that identifies that ethnicity — even if it would not be relevant in other circumstances,” lawyers stated in their motion.

Attorneys said in the motion that speaking Spanish, being at a particular location or one’s job “can contribute to reasonable suspicion in at least some circumstances.”

Government lawyers said Frimpong’s injunction was a first step to placing immigration enforcement under judicial monitorship and was “indefensible on every level.” They asked the higher court to pause the order while the appeal is heard.

The government is also appealing another injunction imposed by a federal judge in the Eastern District of California after Border Patrol agents stopped and arrested dozens of farmworkers and laborers — including a U.S. citizen — during a days-long operation in the Central Valley in January.

That case is likely to be heard later this year.

This spring, I spent five weeks travelling around Mexico – my longest time away from home since becoming a vegan two and a half years ago. It was a learning experience: lots of incredible vegan food, gallons of fall-back guacamole and the odd cheese-related disaster. This is what I found out about being a vegan on holiday, and the advice I received from more seasoned vegan travellers.

Choose your destination wisely

“I have been completely blown away by the difference in attitude and progressiveness of places,” says Alexis Gauthier, a Michelin-starred vegan chef. “I’ve found the cuisines of Mexico, India and the eastern Mediterranean/Levant all vegan-forward. Their use of beans and pulses as a fundamental ingredient and minimal reliance on dairy means they make excellent choices for a vegan holiday.” I second Mexico: pretty much everywhere serves beans, rice and guacamole, and most restaurants will knock up some veggie tacos.

But don’t rule anywhere out – even France

“I’m sorry to say my beloved homeland of France has not yet caught up with the world with vegan food, but there are ways to be smart,” says Gauthier. “In the north it is more difficult, as everything is still mostly based on heavy cream, butter and red meat. Paris is changing – there are now lots of really exciting places opening, especially bakeries.” That wasn’t my experience. I was in Paris last autumn, and it was still difficult to find vegan options.

“In the south it’s better, as menus naturally rotate around seasonal vegetables,” continues Gauthier. “Falafel is popular, as is socca [chickpea flatbread], panisse [chickpea fries] and tapenade. I swear you can live on really good tomatoes, aubergines, basil, chickpeas, olive oil and olives for ever! And there is always France’s greatest dish: ratatouille, my favourite dish in the world.”

Holidaying in the UK may be harder than you think

“Don’t assume that all of the UK is vegan-friendly,” says Holly Johnson, editor of Vegan Food & Living magazine. “What’s normal in a cafe in Bristol is weird and wacky, and even offensive, to those in more remote farming communities. I once got laughed out of a corner shop in Devon for asking for oat milk.”

Go on a city break

“Berlin is an amazing city for vegans, with a real forward-thinking scene, as are Brighton and Vienna,” says Gauthier. I would add London, where eating out is effortless (although expensive), and Mexico City, where I ate exclusively at vegan restaurants. Peta, the animal rights organisation, has free vegan city guides to Berlin, New York, Rio de Janeiro and Sydney, plus one for the Indian state of Goa.

Give the countryside a chance

“I’ve learned never to assume that there won’t be vegan options,” says Elisa Allen from Peta. “I was recently in a small village in rural Ireland. An online search hadn’t turned up any options, so I was pleasantly surprised when the local cafe had two home-baked vegan cakes and a vegan lasagne. The owner’s daughter had recently gone vegan, so they were inspired to expand their menu.”

Look for an alternative scene

In El Cuyo, a laid-back fishing village at the northern tip of Mexico’s Yucatán peninsula, practically every restaurant had hummus and tofu on the menu.

Use the Happy Cow app

Every expert I spoke to recommended the Happy Cow app and website, and I relied heavily on it in Mexico. “Happy Cow is your best friend for seeking vegan options while travelling. You can use it to research local restaurants beforehand or while you’re strolling around a city,” says Chelsea Harrop from Veganuary. “You can filter by vegan and vegetarian eateries, as well as restaurants with plant-based options if the rest of your travel party isn’t eating vegan. I’ve visited many small towns in Ireland and the Scottish islands where I didn’t expect to find anything vegan at all, and Happy Cow has always served me well.”

Learn some helpful phrases in the local language

Not everyone is familiar with the word vegan. Sascha Camilli from Peta says: “A friend of mine tried saying ‘vegan’ in Bali and they all thought she meant ‘pagan’. In Portugal, I’ve been offered gluten-free food because they didn’t know what vegan meant.” A simple explanation, such as “No meat, dairy or eggs, please”, will help. Harrop says: “Learn the words for ingredients such as egg, milk and fish so you can spot them on menus. Phrases such as ‘I don’t eat fish’ or ‘Does it contain egg?’ are also useful.”

Carry a cheat sheet

“In Egypt, I had an infographic in Arabic that said exactly what I didn’t eat,” says Camilli. Peta’s Sadie Buckles says: “When I visited China, my professor helped me make a little card that said: ‘I am a strict vegetarian. No meat, dairy, eggs, fish, milk or cheese. Onions and garlic are OK.’ In China, they will ask if you are Buddhist vegetarian, which means no pungent foods such as garlic, onion, leeks, chives and shallots.”

Call ahead

Jennifer White from Peta contacts restaurants and hotels in advance to explain she’s vegan. “Be super nice about it, and chances are they will make you a lovely meal even if they don’t have anything on the menu,” she says. Johnson says: “I find that most chefs are happy to accommodate, and actually excited to cook something a bit different. I always make sure I show my gratitude – they might just add more plant-based options to the menu in future.” I phoned ahead on a city break to Genoa, and chefs prepared delicious dishes around seasonal ingredients such as artichokes.

Stay in a vegan hotel

The Vegan Welcome website lists 35 hotels around the world that are 100% vegan in the cuisine they offer. It also has a directory of vegan-friendly hotels. Retreat-style holidays almost always cater well for vegans, too.

Consider self-catering

“If you’ve researched your destination and it doesn’t seem vegan-friendly, choose self-catering,” says Harrop. “This way, you can explore the shops and markets, which is a great way to connect with the local culture.” Emma Robinson from Veganuary says: “One of my favourite activities as a traveller is visiting traditional markets. I enjoy looking at the unfamiliar produce and trying to figure out what it is and how to prepare it.” In Mexico, I tried chaya, a spinach-like plant; nopales, the fleshy fronds of the prickly pear; and huitlacoche, offputtingly described as corn fungus, but tasty in a taco. Buy the basics at supermarkets, says White: “They are surprisingly well stocked in many countries, and you can find oat milk, tofu etc.”

“Make the most of online vegan communities when planning your trip, especially Facebook groups and influencers on Instagram and TikTok,” says Harrop. “Most large cities are likely to have a vegan community and there are vegan travel groups on Facebook that are full of invaluable tips.”

Make your vegan quest part of the holiday

“When travelling, I treat vegan cafes and restaurants as tourist destinations in their own right so I can work them into my itinerary,” says Harrop. “Don’t be afraid to go off the beaten path to uncover local vegan treasures – it’s a rewarding way to connect with a city’s culture.” Sophie-Anne Nabhan-Sandison from Veganuary did just that in Dubrovnik. “We found an amazing little vegan restaurant hidden away and it was one of the best meals I have ever had,” she says. Last summer, I sought out a vegan restaurant in Lindos, Rhodes, and even my gyros-addicted boyfriend had to admit it was worth the trip.

Harrop has a word of warning. “If you have your eye on a certain place, always double-check it’s open on the days you’re travelling. I once spent over an hour walking to a vegan cafe in Paris only to find it was closed when I got there.”

But don’t be boring

It’s really frustrating for your non-vegan travel companions to trail round after you for hours, looking for somewhere you can eat. If you find somewhere that ticks everyone else’s boxes – full of local people, on a beautiful piazza – will it kill you to eat bread and salad for a night? “All my friends and family are so supportive – they wouldn’t want to take me anywhere that’s meat-heavy,” says Johnson. “However, I’d never stop them going, and if necessary I’d just eat before or afterwards and join in the fun.”

Research ‘accidentally vegan’ dishes

“I recently went to Cyprus and a lot of the country’s traditional dishes were vegan-friendly,” says Johnson. “Hummus, falafel, olive bread and certain meze dishes are all packed with flavour, so you don’t feel you’re missing out.” Ed Winters, author of This Is Vegan Propaganda and How to Argue with a Meat Eater, found the same on holiday in southern Italy. “I was pleasantly surprised by how much local cuisine was plant-based or could easily be made suitable for vegans. For example, one of the most famous foods from Puglia is focaccia barese with tomatoes and olives.” Every country will have a vegan staple such as rice, wheat, oats, maize, lentils, beans, potatoes, taro or yam.

Ask (politely) for alterations

In France, says Gauthier, you could request chickpeas on your salad instead of goat’s cheese or tuna. In Mexico, I asked for my enfrijoladas “sin huevos”: soft tortillas smothered in refried beans, greens, tomato sauce and ground pumpkin seeds, minus the fried eggs on top. Many restaurants are happy to accommodate simple requests like this. On the other hand, sometimes you have to take no for an answer. At one cafe, I asked for hummus on my toast instead of butter and jam (hummus was on the menu). They said no. I offered to pay extra. Still no.

Seek out vegan versions of local dishes

No vegan goes to Spain to eat Thai green curry – we want tapas and paella like everyone else. On a trip to Germany last year, I found restaurants were particularly good at offering plant-based versions of traditional dishes such as schnitzel (breaded meat) and maultaschen (filled dumplings). Oaxaca in Mexico had several places serving vegan takes on pozole (soup made from hominy – a type of dried corn – with soya chunks instead of meat), chilaquiles (stewed tortilla chips, minus the usual dairy) and tortas (a kind of hearty sandwich), including a hangover-busting barbecue mushroom version.

It’s OK to go off-piste sometimes

On longer holidays, you might find yourself craving a change from the local cuisine. Chinese, Indian, Thai, Korean and Japanese restaurants usually cater well to vegans – in Mexico City, I found an incredible vegan ramen place.

Read – and write – reviews

Vegan travellers tend to be a helpful bunch, highlighting plant-based dishes in restaurant reviews on Tripadvisor, Google and so on. Make sure you return the favour, says Harrop: “Always remember to leave your own reviews to help other travellers seeking vegan options. Share photos of the dishes and menus if you can.”

Use map apps to your advantage

It sounds ridiculous, but when I fancied a change from Mexican food, I searched for “tofu” on my phone’s map. It led me to a fantastic Japanese smokehouse and sake bar, which served agedashi tofu and vegan sushi. White says: “Some countries have navigation apps that are more widely used than Google Maps. For example, South Korea has Naver. Download and use those apps instead.”

Pack snacks

Much like at home, it’s always wise to carry snacks. Johnson says: “Don’t ever assume there will be anything to eat, especially at an airport. Once you’re on the flight, most airlines do offer a vegan option if you’ve ordered it – but don’t forget that said vegan option might just be a banana and a pair of chopsticks.” Harrop suggests snack bars and nuts; I carted a packet of fancy granola around Mexico.

And plant milk

“Always take oat milk,” says Johnson. “There’s nothing worse than waking up in a hotel room, excited for your morning cup of tea, and seeing those sad little pots of UHT cow’s milk.” I like travel-sized Oatly sachets if I’m on the move.

Try vegan activities

I once did a cookery class in Thailand and learned about ingredients such as banana blossom, which I now use regularly in curries. Lots of cities have vegan food tours, and companies such as Naturetrek offer wildlife holidays staying at vegan hotels.

Support animals

I visited the Sian Ka’an biosphere reserve in Yucatán – the entry fee helps protect the habitat of manatees, sea turtles, jaguars, pumas and more. But choose carefully. “Fifteen years ago, I went to Thailand and was so excited to see a baby elephant in a restaurant. Now, I’d avoid places like that,” says Johnson. “Research shows that wild animals being used for human entertainment have most certainly suffered some kind of abuse and are kept in unnatural and often cruel conditions. I would love to try authentic experiences such as safaris or visiting an animal sanctuary, but it’s important to check the provenance of the company or organisation first.”

Accept you will have slip-ups

In one restaurant, I ordered what I thought was a vegan dip, only to be presented with a bowl of melted cheese. And at a tiny campsite in the middle of the jungle, miles from anywhere, I was given scrambled eggs for breakfast. “This has happened to me a few times over the years,” says Johnson. “I don’t let it worry me – we all slip up sometimes and I just carry on as normal. Obviously that’s different if you have an allergy, but I’m vegan for different reasons.”

Don’t sweat about supplements

At home, I take a vegan supplement. On holiday, life’s too short. I just drink the odd green juice and try to eat a varied diet. Johnson does take a multivitamin on holiday, but says: “It’s not something I worry too much about – no one is going to die of a deficiency during a week or two away.”

You can still have an ice-cream

Vegans aren’t condemned to a life of sorbet. In particular, dark chocolate ice-cream is often dairy-free.

If all else fails, there’s always chips

“I would suggest always ordering a side of fries with every salad or curry,” says Gauthier. “It keeps the holiday vibe high!”

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday gave President Trump the authority to dismantle the Education Department and to fire about half of its staff.

In a 6-3 decision, the court’s conservatives set aside a Boston judge’s order and cleared the way for Education Secretary Linda McMahon to carry out her plans to shut down much of her department.

The court issued a brief order with no explanation, followed by a 19-page dissent by Justice Sonia Sotomayor that spoke for the three liberals.

“Only Congress has the power to abolish the Department. The Executive’s task, by contrast, is to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,’” she wrote.

“Yet, by executive fiat, the President ordered the Secretary of Education to ‘take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department’ … Consistent with that Executive Order, Secretary Linda McMahon gutted the Department’s work force, firing over 50 percent of its staff overnight. In her own words, that mass termination served as ‘the first step on the road to a total shutdown’ of the Department.”

McMahon called the decision a “significant win for students and families. … It is a shame that the highest court in the land had to step in to allow President Trump to advance the reforms Americans elected him to deliver using the authorities granted to him by the U.S. Constitution.”

The Department of Education was created in 1979 under President Carter, and it has been a favorite of Democrats since then. It sends funds to school districts across the nation to support extra help for students, including those with disabilities, and it administers programs for grants and loans for students in colleges and universities.

Republicans have been anxious to dismantle the Education Department for decades. They say education policy should be left mostly to states and argue that the teachers unions have too much sway in Washington.

But they also say they would not change or block the federal funding that now goes to support schools and higher education students.

Last week, the court upheld the Trump administration plans for mass layoffs in the more than 20 departments and agencies.

Attorneys for California and 10 other Democratic-led states had sued to block the planned layoffs of about 1,400 Education Department employees, and they won before a federal judge in Boston and the 1st Circuit Court.

Those judges said Congress could reduce or redirect funding from the Education Department, but the president was not free to do it on his own.

But in last week’s order as well as Monday’s, the court’s majority sided with Trump and his broad view of executive power.

Trump’s Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said the administration decided it can “carry out its statutorily mandated functions with a pared down staff” at the Education Department.

Democracy Forward, a progressive group that sued on behalf of educators, said it was “incredibly disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the Trump-Vance administration to proceed with its harmful efforts to dismantle the Department of Education while our case moves forward. This unlawful plan will immediately and irreparably harm students, educators and communities across our nation.”

The Trump administration asked a federal appeals court Monday to allow immigration agents to resume unfettered raids across Southern California, seeking to overturn a federal judge’s order in Los Angeles that barred “roving patrols” in seven counties.

The order “is inflicting irreparable harm by preventing the Executive from ensuring that immigration laws are enforced, severely infringing on the President’s Article II authority,” Department of Justice lawyers wrote in a motion asking for an emergency stay on Monday. “These harms will be compounded the longer that injunction is in place.”

After weeks of aggressive sweeps by masked and heavily armed federal agents, the operations seemingly ceased in Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties following a temporary restraining order granted Friday night by U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong.

A coalition of civil rights groups and private attorneys sued the federal government, challenging the cases of three immigrants and two U.S. citizens swept up in chaotic arrests that have sown terror and sparked widespread protest since June 6.

“It should tell you everything you need to know that the federal government is rushing to appeal an order that instructs them only to follow the Constitution,” said Mohammad Tajsar, an attorney with ACLU of Southern California, who argued the case. “We look forward to defending the temporary restraining order and ensuring that communities across Southern California are safe from the federal government’s violence.”

Despite arguments from the Trump administration that its tactics are valid, Frimpong ruled that using race, ethnicity, language, accent, location or employment as a pretext for immigration enforcement is forbidden by the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The judge found that preventing detainees from meeting with lawyers violates the right to due process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

“What the federal government would have this court believe — in the face of a mountain of evidence presented in this case — is that none of this is actually happening,” she wrote.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem incorrectly referred to Frimpong as a man when responding to the order during a news conference Saturday, saying of the judge’s order: “He’s an idiot.”

“We have all the right in the world to go out on the streets and to uphold the law and to do what we’re going to do. So none of our operations are going to change,” Noem said. “We’re going to appeal it and we’re going to win.”

In addition to blocking roving patrols, the judge also ordered the Department of Homeland Security to open part of its detention facility in Downtown Los Angeles to attorneys and legal aid groups.

“While the district court injunction is a significant victory for immigrants, the whiplash of court orders and appeals breeds uncertainty,” said Ming Hsu Chen, a professor at UC Law San Francisco. “That form of real-world insecurity weakens communities and undermines democratic values in places like LA.”

The Trump administration did not immediately contest the 5th Amendment portion of the ruling. Instead, its attacked the 4th Amendment claim, seeking a stay that would immediately restore the status quo for immigration agents across Southern California while the case is heard by judges from the higher court.

“It is untenable for a district judge to single-handedly ‘restructure the operations’ of federal immigration enforcement,” the appeal argued. “This judicial takeover cannot be allowed to stand.”

But some experts say that’s unlikely.

“Their argument [is] the sky’s falling,” said professor Carl Tobias of the University of Richmond. “They make very extreme arguments, and that doesn’t necessarily help their case in the 9th Circuit.”

The appeal escalates an already fierce and sprawling legal battle over Trump’s promised mass deportations and the means used to achieve it.

After the president deployed troops to quell anti-ICE protests in June, California sued and won a temporary restraining order that would have stripped the president of command.

The appellate panel swiftly blocked that decision, before overturning it in mid-June, leaving thousands of soldiers in Trump’s hands.

But the Trump appointee who authored the June 19 ruling, Judge Mark J. Bennett of Honolulu, also bristled at the government’s argument that the president’s actions in the case were “unreviewable.”

“Some of the things they say are unorthodox, arguments we don’t usually hear in court,” Chen said. “Instead of framing this as executive overreach, they’re saying the judiciary’s efforts to put limits on executive power is judicial overreach.”

Last week, another 9th Circuit judge challenged that June decision, petitioning the court to rehear the issue with a larger “en banc” panel — a move that could nudge the case to the Supreme Court.

“Before [courts] became so politicized, many judges would often defer to the 3-judge panels that first heard appeals, because they trusted their colleagues,” Tobias said. “Increasing politicization of most appeals courts and somewhat decreased collegiality complicate efforts to predict how the Ninth’s judges will vote in this case.”

Meanwhile, California is gathering evidence to bolster its claim that Marines and National Guard forces participating in immigration enforcement run afoul of the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids using soldiers to enforce civilian laws.

Compared to those questions, the legal issues in the L.A. appeal are simple, experts said.

“What makes this case different is how much it’s based on facts,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law. “It’s much harder for an appellate court to overturn a trial court finding of fact then it is with regard to legal conclusions.”

Pacemaker

Pacemaker

PA Media

Eleventh night bonfires

A federal judge has granted a temporary restraining order that blocks Los Angeles police officers from using rubber projectiles and other so-called less-lethal munitions against reporters covering protests against the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

In a ruling made public Friday, U.S. District Judge Hernán D. Vera said a coalition of press rights organization successfully argued that a court injunction was necessary to protect journalists and others exercising their 1st Amendment rights.

The Los Angeles Press Club and investigative reporting network Status Coup filed suit last month to “force the LAPD to respect the constitutional and statutory rights of journalists engaged in reporting on these protests and inevitable protests to come.” The lawsuit challenged the “continuing abuse” by police of members of the media covering the demonstrations.

Vera’s order bars the department from using less-lethal munitions and other crowd-control tools such chemical irritants and flash-bang grenades “against journalists who are not posing a threat of imminent harm to an officer or another person.”

“On some occasions, LAPD officers purportedly targeted individuals who were clearly identifiable as members of the press,” Vera wrote.

The judge cited a June 8 incident at a demonstration downtown where an Australian reporter named Lauren Tomasi was wrapping up a report on live TV, dozens of feet away from a line of officers.

“No protesters are visible near her,” Vera wrote. “Despite this, an LAPD officer appears to aim at Tomasi, hitting her leg with a rubber bullet.”

The judge ruled that the LAPD cannot prohibit a journalist from entering or remaining in protest areas that have been closed off to the public while “gathering, receiving, or processing information.”

The order also forbids intentionally “assaulting, interfering with, or obstructing any journalist who is gathering, receiving, or processing information for communication to the public.”

Free press advocates who brought the suit praised the judge’s decision.

“The press weren’t accidentally hurt at the immigration protests; they were deliberately hurt,” said attorney Carol Sobel. “It’s astonishing to me that we are at the same point with LAPD over and over again.”

City lawyers could challenge the order before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell has said he’s “very concerned” by instances of journalists being targeted by police munitions and vowed each incident would be investigated. He said he did not believe officers were aiming at reporters with less-lethal weapons.

“It is a target-specific munition,” he told reporters at a press briefing. “That’s not to say that it always hits the intended target, particularly in a dynamic situation.”

Vera’s order says that if the LAPD detains or arrests a person who identifies themselves as a journalist, that person may contact a supervisor and challenge their detention. The order also required the LAPD to report back to the court with details of officers being informed of the new rules. The judge set a preliminary injunction hearing for July 24, in which both sides will argue the merits of the case.

The lawsuit accuses the LAPD of flouting state laws passed in the wake of the 2020 protests over the killing of George Floyd by police in Minneapolis, when journalists were detained and injured by the LAPD while covering the unrest.

Apart from journalists, scores of protesters allege LAPD projectiles left them with severe bruises, lacerations and serious injuries.

Under the restrictions ordered by the judge Friday, police can target individuals with 40-millimeter rounds “only when the officer reasonably believes that a suspect is violently resisting arrest or poses an immediate threat of violence or physical harm.” Officers are also barred from targeting people in the head, torso and groin areas.

Times staff Writer Libor Jany contributed to this report.

CONCORD, N.H. — A federal judge in New Hampshire said Thursday he will certify a class action lawsuit including all children who will be affected by President Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship and issue a preliminary injunction blocking it.

Judge Joseph LaPlante announced his decision after an hour-long hearing and said a written order will follow. The order will include a seven-day stay to allow for appeal, he said.

The class is slightly narrower than that sought by the plaintiffs, who originally included parents as plaintiffs.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a pregnant woman, two parents and their infants. It’s among numerous cases challenging Trump’s January order denying citizenship to those born to parents living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. The plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and others.

At issue is the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The Trump administration says the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally, ending what has been seen as an intrinsic part of U.S. law for more than a century.

“Prior misimpressions of the citizenship clause have created a perverse incentive for illegal immigration that has negatively impacted this country’s sovereignty, national security, and economic stability,” government lawyers wrote in the New Hampshire case.

LaPlante, who had issued a narrow injunction in a similar case, said while he didn’t consider the government’s arguments frivolous, he found them unpersuasive. He said his decision to issue an injunction was “not a close call” and that deprivation of U.S. citizenship clearly amounted to irreparable harm.

Cody Wofsy, an attorney for the plaintiffs, and his team have been inundated by families who are confused and fearful about the executive order, he said. Thursday’s ruling “is going to protect every single child around the country from this lawless, unconstitutional and cruel executive order,” he said.

Several federal judges had issued nationwide injunctions stopping Trump’s order from taking effect, but the U.S. Supreme Court limited those injunctions in a June 27 ruling that gave lower courts 30 days to act. With that time frame in mind, opponents of the change quickly returned to court to try to block it.

In a Washington state case before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the judges have asked the parties to write briefs explaining the effect of the Supreme Court’s ruling. Washington and the other states in that lawsuit have asked the appeals court to return the case to the lower court judge.

As in New Hampshire, a plaintiff in Maryland seeks to organize a class-action lawsuit that includes every person who would be affected by the order. The judge set a Wednesday deadline for written legal arguments as she considers the request for another nationwide injunction from CASA, a nonprofit immigrant rights organization.

Ama Frimpong, legal director at CASA, said the group has been stressing to its members and clients that it is not time to panic.

“No one has to move states right this instant,” she said. “There’s different avenues through which we are all fighting, again, to make sure that this executive order never actually sees the light of day.”

The New Hampshire plaintiffs, referred to only by pseudonyms, include a woman from Honduras who has a pending asylum application and is due to give birth to her fourth child in October. She told the court the family came to the U.S. after being targeted by gangs.

“I do not want my child to live in fear and hiding. I do not want my child to be a target for immigration enforcement,” she wrote. “I fear our family could be at risk of separation.”

Another plaintiff, a man from Brazil, has lived with his wife in Florida for five years. Their first child was born in March, and they are in the process of applying for lawful permanent status based on family ties — his wife’s father is a U.S. citizen.

“My baby has the right to citizenship and a future in the United States,” he wrote.

Ramer and Catalini write for the Associated Press. Catalini reported from Trenton, N.J.

A federal judge in New Hampshire has blocked United States President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship as part of a class-action lawsuit.

Thursday’s ruling is the first to test the limits of a recent Supreme Court decision limiting the use of nationwide injunctions. It is expected to face an immediate appeal from the Trump administration.

Birthright citizenship is a right protected under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. That amendment establishes that “all persons born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States”.

For decades, that amendment has been understood to grant citizenship to anyone born in the US, regardless of their parentage.

But Trump has argued that undocumented parents are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US and therefore their US-born children cannot be considered citizens.

On the first day of his second term, Trump signed an executive order that would restrict birthright citizenship based on the immigration status of a newborn’s parents — but critics have warned that decision could render babies stateless.

That concern has prompted a slew of legal challenges, including the one that came before US District Judge Joseph Laplante on Thursday.

In his federal courtroom in Concord, New Hampshire, Laplante announced that a class-action lawsuit representing all children affected by Trump’s order could proceed.

Then he proceeded to award a preliminary injunction on behalf of the plaintiffs, suspending Trump’s order restricting birthright citizenship. He added that his decision was “not a close call”.

“That’s irreparable harm, citizenship alone,” he said. “It is the greatest privilege that exists in the world.”

Laplante, however, did place a stay on his injunction, allowing the Trump administration seven days to appeal it.

What are the origins of this case?

Thursday’s case is one of several seeking to overturn Trump’s executive order.

It was brought on behalf of a pregnant woman, two parents and their children born during Trump’s second term. But they filed their lawsuit as a class action, meaning it represents an entire group — or “class” — of people.

In court filings made on Tuesday, the plaintiffs argued they needed immediate relief from Trump’s executive order, which could deprive the children of Social Security numbers and access to other government services.

“Tens of thousands of babies and their parents may be exposed to the order’s myriad harms in just weeks and need an injunction now,” the plaintiffs wrote in their lawsuit.

The individual parents and children are not identified by name in the lawsuit. But they did speak to the uncertainty they faced as a result of the executive order.

The pregnant woman, for example, explained that she is seeking asylum in the US after fleeing gangs in her home country of Honduras. Her child is expected to be born in October.

“I do not want my child to live in fear and hiding. I do not want my child to be a target for immigration enforcement,” she wrote in the court filings. “I fear our family could be at risk of separation.”

Another plaintiff is a father from Brazil who has lived in Florida for five years. He and his wife are in the process of applying for permanent residency, and they welcomed their first child in March.

“My baby has the right to citizenship and a future in the United States,” he wrote, pointing out that his wife’s father is a US citizen.

The Trump administration, however, has argued that the longstanding interpretation of birthright citizenship encourages undocumented immigration to the US, a trend it has compared to an “invasion”.

Furthermore, it asserts that the modern understanding of birthright citizenship is based on a misinterpretation of the law.

“Prior misimpressions of the citizenship clause have created a perverse incentive for illegal immigration that has negatively impacted this country’s sovereignty, national security, and economic stability,” government lawyers wrote in response to the New Hampshire case.

How has the Supreme Court affected these cases?

The Trump administration had previously faced setbacks in court, with three federal judges issuing nationwide injunctions against the executive order restricting birthright citizenship.

But those injunctions were overturned on June 27, in a Supreme Court ruling with sweeping implications.

In a six-to-three decision, the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority ruled that the lower court judges had exceeded their authority by issuing “universal injunctions”.

It suggested federal court injunctions should only apply to the plaintiffs in the case at hand.

“Traditionally, courts issued injunctions prohibiting executive officials from enforcing a challenged law or policy only against the plaintiffs in the lawsuit,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote on behalf of the majority.

There was an exception, however: class-action lawsuits.

By definition, those suits could seek protection for a whole class of people. But class-action complaints must follow specific rules, clearly defining the class in question and ensuring no members of that group would be disadvantaged by their inclusion in the lawsuit.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the Supreme Court’s June 27 decision risked prompting a tsunami of class-action lawsuits in the federal court system.

“District courts should not view today’s decision as an invitation to certify nationwide classes without scrupulous adherence to the rigors of Rule 23,” Alito wrote, referencing the procedures that define what constitutes a class action.

“Otherwise, the universal injunction will return from the grave under the guise of ‘nationwide class relief’.”

The Supreme Court gave a 30-day window for plaintiffs to adjust their lawsuits in the wake of its decision. That window is set to expire on July 27, allowing Trump’s executive order to take effect.

The court has not yet ruled on the merits of birthright citizenship itself and is expected to do so in its next term, which begins in October.

Meanwhile, lower courts are weighing how to address the Supreme Court’s decision.

A group of states that brought a case challenging Trump’s executive order, for instance, has asked that a Massachusetts federal court consider whether an injunction they were awarded would still apply under the Supreme Court’s ruling. A hearing is set for July 18.

Advocates estimate more than 150,000 babies could be denied citizenship each year if Trump’s executive order is allowed to stand.

The BRICS bloc of developing nations aims to challenge the US-led economic order. In theory, it has the clout to push through reforms to global governance. But critics say the expanded group faces rifts among its members.

BRICS leaders have criticised US policies, including trade tariffs, during the gathering in Brazil’s Rio de Janiero, but they shied away from naming Washington directly.

President Donald Trump responded by threatening a 10% levy on any country that aligns itself with BRICS policies.

And the UN special rapporteur says global companies should be held accountable for profiting from the genocide in Gaza.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court cleared the way Tuesday for the Trump administration to lay off tens of thousands of federal employees and downsize their agencies without seeking the approval of Congress.

In an 8-1 vote, the justices lifted an order from a federal judge in San Francisco who blocked mass layoffs at more than 20 departments and agencies.

The court has sided regularly with President Trump and his broad view of executive power on matters involving federal agencies.

In a brief order, the court said “the Government is likely to succeed on its argument that the Executive Order and Memorandum are lawful,” referring to the plans to reduce staffing. But it said it was not ruling on specific layoffs.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor concurred with the decision on the grounds that it was narrow and temporary.

Dissenting alone, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the court should not have intervened.

“Under our Constitution, Congress has the power to establish administrative agencies and detail their functions,” she wrote.

Since mid-April, the court has handed down a series of temporary orders that cleared the way for Trump’s planned cutbacks in funding and staffing at federal agencies.

Litigation will continue in the lower courts, but the justices are not likely to reverse course and rule next year that they made a mistake in allowing the staffing cutbacks to proceed.

The layoff case posed the question of whether Congress or the president had the authority to downsize agencies.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco said Congress, not the president, creates federal agencies and decides on their size and their duties.

“Agencies may not conduct large-scale reorganizations and reductions in force in blatant disregard of Congress’s mandates, and a president may not initiate large-scale executive branch reorganization without partnering with Congress,” she said on May 22.

Her order barred more than 20 departments and agencies from carrying out mass layoffs in response to an executive order from Trump.

They included the departments of Commerce, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, State, Treasury, Transportation and Veterans Affairs as well as the Environmental Protection Agency, the General Services Administration and the National Science Foundation.

She said the planned layoffs are large. The Health and Human Services department plans to cut 8,000 to 10,000 employees and the Energy Department 8,500. The Veterans Administration had planned to lay off 83,000 employees but said recently it will reduce that number to about 30,000.

Labor unions had sued to stop the layoffs as illegal.

Illson agreed that the agencies were not acting on their own to trim their staffs. Rather, Trump’s Office of Management and Budget under Russ Vought was leading the reorganization and restructuring of dozen of agencies. She said only Congress can reorganize agencies.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, by a 2-1 vote, turned down the administration’s appeal of the judge’s order.

Appealing to the Supreme Court, Trump’s lawyers insisted the president had the full authority to fire tens of thousands of employees.

“The Constitution does not erect a presumption against presidential control of agency staffing,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said in his appeal, “and the President does not need special permission from Congress.”

He said federal law allows agencies to reduce their staffs.

“Neither Congress nor the Executive Branch has ever intended to make federal bureaucrats a class with lifetime employment, whether there was work for them to do or not,” Sauer wrote.

Brigitte Knightley’s debut novel, “The Irresistible Urge to Fall for Your Enemy,” has everything fans of enemies-to-lovers romance are looking for: disagreement that becomes flirtatious banter, ethical quandaries, forced proximity, and characters who can overcome their prejudices to see a human beneath a label. Featuring a brutal assassin and a magical healer forced to work together while trying — desperately — not to fall in love, the heat of this romantasy novel is perfect for warm summer nights.

Osric Mordaunt, considered a dark magic user, is part of an order of assassins hated and dismissed by Aurienne Fairhrim’s light magic order of healers. When Osric seeks medical treatment for a degenerative condition, he gets roped into helping Aurienne’s order cure an outbreak of pox that is killing children in droves. The pair traipses around seeking healing under romantic full moons and become involved in spycraft that reveals evidence that the outbreak is not what it seems. They begin to see each other beyond their individual allegiances, but it happens slowly, prejudices unraveling at a crawling pace. The author’s bio declares that she puts the unresolved back in “unresolved sexual tension,” and it’s true: Knightley is a master of the slow burn.

There is plenty of fun along the way: Getting to know both magical orders, their fortes and foibles, is a squelching, bodily fluid-filled delight: The only thing sharper than their wit is the divide that separates their lives. The magic system has an almost science-fiction element to it, with lots of medical talk about magical maladies and a well-rendered in-line breakdown of how “Outlander”-esque menhir travel works. Aurienne is as much a scientist as a witch, which is a treat in a genre overrun by wand-waving laziness. The novel is set in the 19th century, but in a version of England where the Norman Conquest of 1066 failed. Instead of a unified empire, the smaller kingdoms of the Heptarchy still dominate, their various dangerous machinations providing the raison d’être for the differing orders.

“Irresistible” might be set in the period we know as the Victorian era, and there are royals and attendant paraphernalia, but lovers of polite courtly romances might want to steer clear. With more dick jokes than a Deadpool movie, Knightley’s novel is dirty. Sexual attraction is not hidden behind genteel metaphors; Aurienne and Osric want. They’re not blushing virgins on their way to an altar, but adults who have loved and lost, who each bring a trolley’s worth of emotional baggage and sexual preferences to their relationship. Their self-awareness is part of the charm; they might wield magic like us mortals wield butter knives, but they’re relatable.

Readers plugged into the world of fan fiction may recognize the author’s name, which is a pseudonym. Writing under a previous nom de plume, isthisselfcare, Knightley gained an enormous fan base dedicated to “Draco Malfoy and The Mortifying Ordeal of Being in Love,” her 199,000-word Dramione — short for Hermione Granger/Draco Malfoy — on a popular fan-fiction site. With a Jane Austen-influenced voice, it was ironic, sarcastic and delightful. Knightley’s new novel is like a grown-up version of “Mortifying” — more mature, more grounded and more voicey than ever. Fans will be pleased to see how she’s grown.

People love to denigrate fan-fiction writers, though some of today’s most popular authors started as fan-fiction writers: Cassandra Clare, Naomi Novik and Andy Weir, to name just three. Novels like “Irresistible” are proof positive that writing fan fiction is an excellent training ground for building a novel. To write truly great fan fiction, a writer must identify what makes the source material sparkle and then replicate it. It’s not enough to graft existing characters into new situations. The most effective fan fiction shows readers how characters can continue to grow beyond the bounds of the original work while remaining consistent with the source material. That exercise in maintaining consistency and internal logic is excellent practice for creating original worlds.

In some cases, that also means identifying elements about characters that original authors themselves might not see. This was especially true of the explosion of Draco/Hermione fic after the Harry Potter series ended. Where author J.K. Rowling saw an irredeemable villain in Draco Malfoy, thousands of people saw an abused child who had grown up in a dangerous household and was trying to survive. Fan fiction allowed writers to transform Draco into a good person who falls in love with his childhood enemy; this gave readers the redemption arc Rowling set up but didn’t follow through on. There are tens of thousands of fics that explore this arc.

Literary-minded sociologists could probably study how millennial women never fully recovered from Draco’s lost redemption. The preponderance of platinum blond bad boys with chances at redemption has only grown as the girls who grew up reading Harry Potter became authors themselves: Coriolanus Snow in Hunger Games trilogy prequel “Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes,” Sebastian Morgenstern in “City of Glass,” Cardan in “The Cruel Prince.” (“Buffy’s” Spike is a clear predecessor.)

With Knightley’s debut, we can add Osric Mordaunt to the list. He is a tragic figure, doomed to a life filled with violence after an abusive childhood. He’s shaken out of this destiny by meeting the STEMinist figure Aurienne, who accepts no excuses for his bad behavior.

Though Osric seems to have Malfoy DNA at his heart, the rest of the cast is original and well-developed. That said, Aurienne does toe the line between aloof and arrogantly unlikable. We get the hint that she has a dark backstory, that her snark is a shield, but we’ll have to wait for Book 2 to find out. Until then, “Irresistible” will probably inspire fan fiction of its own, training a new generation of authors.

Castellanos Clark, a writer and historian in Los Angeles, is the author of “Unruly Figures: Twenty Tales of Rebels, Rulebreakers, and Revolutionaries You’ve (Probably) Never Heard Of.”

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for the deportation of several immigrants who were put on a flight in May bound for South Sudan, a war-ravaged country where they have no ties.

The decision comes after the court’s conservative majority found that immigration officials can quickly deport people to third countries. The majority halted an order that had allowed immigrants to challenge any removals to countries outside their homeland where they could be in danger.

The court’s latest order makes clear that the South Sudan flight detoured to a naval base in Djibouti weeks ago can now complete the trip. It reverses findings from federal Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts, who said his order on those migrants still stands even after the high court lifted his broader decision.

The majority wrote that their decision on June 23 completely halted Murphy’s ruling and also rendered his decision on the South Sudan flight “unenforceable.” The court did not fully detail its legal reasoning on the underlying case, as is common on its emergency docket.

Two liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented, saying the ruling gives the government special treatment. “Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial,” Sotomayor wrote.

Attorneys for the eight migrants have said they could face “imprisonment, torture and even death” if sent to South Sudan, where escalating political tensions have threatened to devolve into another civil war.

“We know they’ll face perilous conditions, and potentially immediate detention, upon arrival,” Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, said Thursday.

The push comes amid a sweeping immigration crackdown by Trump’s Republican administration, which has pledged to deport millions of people who are living in the United States illegally. The Trump administration has called Murphy’s finding “a lawless act of defiance.”

The White House and Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment.

Authorities have reached agreements with other countries to house immigrants if authorities can’t quickly send them back to their homelands. The eight men sent to South Sudan in May had been convicted of serious crimes in the U.S.

Murphy, who was nominated by Democratic President Biden, didn’t prohibit deportations to third countries. But he found migrants must have a real chance to argue they could be in danger of torture if sent to another country.

The men have been held in a converted shipping container on the naval base in Djibouti since Murphy found the administration had violated his order by failing to allow them a chance to challenge the removal to South Sudan. They have since expressed a fear of being sent there, Realmuto said.

Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press.

Carlos Alcaraz, Aryna Sabalenka and the end of London’s tropical heatwave have ensured that a sense of normality has returned to the lawns of Wimbledon on day three of the tournament after two sweat-soaked days of shocks.

A stream of big names – including Coco Gauff, Jessica Pegula, Alexander Zverev and Daniil Medvedev – have crashed and burned in the oven-like temperatures of the first round.

So when Alcaraz walked onto Centre Court on Wednesday in his quest for a third successive title against British qualifier Oliver Tarvet, the thought surely lurked somewhere in his mind that he could be the fall guy in the tournament’s greatest upset.

The 21-year-old second seed was not at his best, but after saving three break points in a nervy opening service game against a college student ranked 733rd in the world, he asserted his authority to win 6-1, 6-4, 6-4.

Sabalenka tops Bouzkova

Earlier on Centre Court, the women’s top seed, Sabalenka, battled to a 7-6(4), 6-4 win against Czech Marie Bouzkova.

“Honestly, it is sad to see so many upsets in the tournament in both draws, women’s and men’s,” Sabalenka, who is bidding for her first Wimbledon title, said.

“Honestly, I’m just trying to focus on myself.”

Australian Open champion Madison Keys, the sixth seed, also made it safely into round three, beating Olga Danilovic 6-4, 6-2 while unseeded four-time Grand Slam champion Naomi Osaka eased past Czech doubles specialist Katerina Siniakova 6-3, 6-2.

Lower temperatures did not mean an end to the surprises entirely, though, as American world number 12 Frances Tiafoe became the 14th of the 32 men’s seeds to depart, going down 4-6, 6-4, 6-3, 7-5 to Cameron Norrie, one of seven British players in second-round singles action on day three.

Sonay Kartal led the home charge by beating Bulgaria’s Viktoriya Tomova 6-2, 6-2 to book her place in the last 32 for the second year in succession.

There was disappointment, though, for Britain’s Katie Boulter, who served 14 double faults as she went down 6-7(9), 6-2, 6-1 to 101st-ranked Solana Sierra, the Argentinian who lost in qualifying but has seized her lucky loser spot with both hands.

Alcaraz congratulates Tarvet

Alcaraz, bidding to do the French Open-Wimbledon double for the second successive year, needed five sets to get past Italian veteran Fabio Fognini in the first round and set up an intriguing clash with Tarvet.

Tarvet, who plays on the United States collegiate circuit for the University of San Diego, said he believed he could beat anyone, even Alcaraz, after winning his Grand Slam debut match against fellow qualifier Leandro Riedi of Switzerland on Monday.

He was clearly not overawed at sharing a court with a five-time Grand Slam champion, and had he taken any of the eight break points he earned in the first set, it could have been closer.

Alcaraz proved to be the better player on Wednesday, though, as he moved through the gears when required to keep an eager Tarvet under control.

Just as the Spaniard did in his first round when going to the aid of a female spectator suffering in the heat, Alcaraz again endeared himself to the Centre Court crowd.

“First of all, I have to give a big congratulations to Oliver. It’s his second match on the tour. I just loved his game to be honest, the level he played,” Alcaraz said.

Play on the courts without roofs was delayed for two hours by light morning rain, but once the clouds rolled away, the place to be for those without show-court tickets was Court 12 for Brazilian teenager Joao Fonseca’s second-round match against American Jenson Brooksby.

The 18-year-old is widely tipped as a future challenger to Alcaraz and Jannik Sinner, and he showed exactly why during a 6-2, 5-7, 6-2, 6-4 win that was celebrated by a large contingent of exuberant Brazilians.

Raducanu sets up Sabalenka tie

Facing a rival who has already experienced the joys of winning Wimbledon did not faze Emma Raducanu as the Briton rode out the “crazy pressure” heaped on her slender shoulders to defeat Marketa Vondrousova 6-3, 6-3 in the second round.

In a battle between two Grand Slam champions, both unseeded after years of trials and tribulations, Czech Vondrousova would have fancied her chances of knocking out Britain’s big hope.

After all, the 2023 champion had arrived at the All England Club fresh from winning the grass-court title in Berlin with victories over Australian Open champion Madison Keys and world number one Sabalenka en route.

However, it was Raducanu whose game sparkled on Centre Court as she produced the kind of carefree, yet potent shots that had carried her to the US Open title in 2021.

“Today I played really, really well. There were some points that I have no idea how I turned around,” a delighted Raducanu told the crowd.

“I knew playing Marketa was going to be an incredibly difficult match. She has won this tournament, which is a huge achievement. I’m really pleased with how I played my game the whole way through.”

An eye-popping running backhand passing shot winner handed her the break for a 4-2 lead in the first set.

Although a sloppy service game gave Vondrousova the break back in the next game, the British number one wasted little time in regaining the advantage for a 5-3 lead after a forehand error from the Czech.

Moments later, thundering roars from the Centre Court crowd could be heard around the All England Club and beyond as Vondrousova surrendered the set with yet another miscued forehand.

Clearly unsettled, the errors started piling up for Vondrousova, who had previously admitted that she did not envy the “crazy pressure” Raducanu had to deal with day in and day out after becoming the first British woman to win a major in 44 years.

Yet another forehand slapped long by Vondrousova handed Raducanu a break for 2-1, and from then on, there was no stopping the Briton. She sealed a third-round meeting with Sabalenka after her opponent swiped a backhand wide.