When a county judge put the brakes on what would be the largest data center in California, ruling the whole project needed extensive environmental review, Kristian Salgado was relieved.

The community organizer lives in Imperial County, where the nearly one-million-square-foot facility was proposed. The rural county near the Mexico border struggles with bad air pollution and has one the state’s highest rates of asthma hospitalization for kids, according to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. One of Salgado’s nephews lives right next to the site and struggles with the respiratory disease.

“It just seemed very unusual that a project of this scale, with that many backup generators could be permitted without requiring any further [analysis] of what that would mean for residents,” she said.

Now, Salgado and others who share her concern believe Proposition 45 on the November ballot could roll back their wins. The initiative changes the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, a law intended to inform decision makers and the public about a project’s possible environmental impacts — and mitigate them to the extent possible.

Supporters say Prop 45 will speed up environmental review for essential housing, transportation, water, health, education and other projects, cutting costly delays and passing the savings on to consumers. Opponents say it not only weakens environmental protections for many developments, but will cover potentially polluting ones — including data centers. The Yes on 45 campaign forcefully rejects the data center claim, but independent legal experts are divided.

At the heart of the debate is the definition of one of the categories covered by Prop 45: “broadband internet access projects” or “mass-market retail service … that provides the capability to transmit data to, and receive data from, all or substantially all internet endpoints.”

Dan Dunmoyer, president and chief executive of the California Building Industry Assn., which supports the proposition, was adamant: “We specifically excluded data centers” when crafting the measure.

Yet the proposition expressly names certain excluded projects: nuclear energy, high-speed rail, jails and Delta conveyance facilities. Data centers aren’t among them.

Dunmoyer maintains that even if they’re not explicitly listed, data centers just don’t fit the measure’s definition.

In a Daily Journal op-ed, Rachelle Chong, a former Federal Communications Commission member, similarly argues that the definition refers to internet access bought from a provider like AT&T or Comcast. “A conventional data center ordinarily performs an entirely different function,” she wrote, arguing data centers aren’t in play.

But land use attorneys Matthew McKerley and Richard Frank, in another op-ed, say many modern data centers fit the bill because they house equipment used to transmit consumer data to and from the internet.

They also highlight conspicuous campaign finance contributions, including $250,000 from Prologis, which developed two data centers in San Jose.

Ethan Elkind, director of the climate program at UC Berkeley Law, said data centers will argue they fit the definition — and then it will be up to the courts to decide.

“Anyone telling you that it’s definitely not going to be data centers, they cannot read the future,” he said. “The way they’ve written the language, they can’t provide 100% assurance.”

Eric Biber, a UC Berkeley law school professor with expertise in environmental law, pointed to language in the measure requiring it to be interpreted broadly “to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and realization of, essential projects.” In a blog post, he called it “a thumb on the scale” that could lead courts to conclude that projects should be covered when their eligibility is in doubt.

But Ryan Thomason and J. Scott Miller, partners at the law firm Mitchell Chadwick with CEQA expertise, think it’s likely courts would rule otherwise. In an article, they note that the definition used in the measure hews closely to another section of California law, which distinguishes providing internet services from offering content, services and applications online. “Courts generally interpret identical language in related statutes to have the same meaning,” they write.

Dunmoyer, of the California Building Industry Ass., stressed that the measure doesn’t overthrow local zoning rules.

Opponents are “making it sound like in your backyard will be a data center,” he said. “Well, that doesn’t happen at all by this initiative. That has to happen by a county board of supervisors voting to put a data center in your backyard. And if they decide to do that, this initiative does nothing to expedite that CEQA review.”

But what if local officials run afoul of their constituents? In the case of the Imperial Valley Data Center Campus, the roughly 75 acres of unincorporated land where it would go had already been zoned for data centers. As a result, county officials said they had the power to move forward with the facility for artificial intelligence computing infrastructure without city approval.

They granted the project an exemption from the state environmental review.

Then came the backlash. Residents spoke out at public meetings, rallied on the streets, circulated a petition and formed a community organization. The city of Imperial and the Sierra Club sued. In the wake of the outrage, the county walked back its decision, declaring a moratorium on data centers. (The developer sued the county over the ban, and the county recently rescinded it following a court order.)

If Prop 45 passes — and data centers are covered by it — Eric Biber, of UC Berkeley Law, told The Times that such a moratorium wouldn’t be possible. That’s because the measure prevents state and local officials from changing the rules for a project once its application is submitted, he said. So if a community didn’t have a moratorium in place and its zoning laws allow a data center, “They’re done,” said. Existing bans aren’t expected to be affected.

Attorneys for the No on Prop 45 campaign argue that it could have real-world impacts for the Imperial Valley facility, saying the developer could claim the new rules apply. For instance, the measure would prevent courts from overturning approvals of qualifying projects because of CEQA violations. Courts would only be able to halt the affected portion of the project while the issue is fixed.

Sebastian Rucci, principal developer of the Imperial Valley data center, said he will fight for his project to move forward and that there’s an environmentally sound way to do it. He said he’s willing to negotiate and mitigate where necessary — but will not go through the CEQA process. If push comes to shove, he said he’ll move the project elsewhere. California could “get in the game” or be left in the dust, he said.

Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing, the company behind the project, says it will create at least 100 permanent jobs and generate $28.7 million in annual property tax revenue.

CEQA requirements “are not about the environment,” Rucci said. “They may be for some, but they’re not for many. For many, they are about killing things.”

Rams left tackle Alaric Jackson’s suspension for punching a Buffalo Bills player after a game has been reduced from two games to one, an NFL spokesman said Wednesday.

Jackson was suspended for striking Bills linebacker Bradley Chubb in the face after the Bills defeated the Rams, 37-34, in overtime on Monday night.

Jackson appealed the suspension.

“Hearing officer Derrick Brooks, jointly appointed by the NFL and the NFLPA, has reduced the two game suspension of Los Angeles Rams offensive lineman Alaric Jackson to one game,” Michael Signora, the NFL’s senior vice president of football and international communications said in a post to X.

Jackson must sit out Sunday’s game against the Arizona Cardinals but is eligible to return for an Oct. 25 game against the Las Vegas Raiders.

David Quessenberry is on track to start in place of Jackson, coach Sean McVay said Tuesday.

The Rams will also start the 21-day window for rookie Keagan Trost to return from injured reserve.

Victims’ groups, however, have denounced the ruling as ‘selective’ justice that exonerates a former government head.

A Mexican judge has closed the case against Francisco Garduno, former head of the country’s immigration agency, for crimes related to the 2023 fire at a Ciudad Juarez detention centre that killed 40 migrants and injured 30 others.

The incident was the deadliest event ever to occur at a Mexican immigration centre, and critics said it exposed the shortcomings and irregularities in the country’s detention system.

Garduno faced trial for the crimes of abuse of public office and dereliction of duty after footage from the fire showed guards had failed to respond to cries for help.

On Tuesday, Judge Victor Manlio Hernandez Calderon ruled that Garduno had fulfilled the court-mandated measures required to address the damage. But victims rejected that decision and announced they would appeal.

“Yesterday, corruption and the impunity of politicians protected by power won again,” the Foundation for Justice, one of the NGOs representing some of the victims, wrote on social media on Wednesday.

The victims have also compared the judge’s decision to close the criminal case to a de facto exoneration for Garduno.

In their view, the ruling “confirms that justice in Mexico is selective” and denies the victims “full reparations” and concrete guarantees that such an event will not be repeated.

Miguel Zenteno, one of the foundation’s lawyers, noted that the ruling is not yet final because it will be appealed and because another injunction is pending against the court-mandated reparations, which critics say failed to meet the standards for serious events.

On March 27, 2023, some 70 men were crammed into a locked dormitory with no ventilation and barely any water at the Ciudad Juarez immigration detention centre, on the border with El Paso, Texas.

As night fell, a small group set fire to some mattresses in protest, and within seconds, smoke engulfed the entire area.

Security cameras recorded the guards leaving the area despite cries for help. They made no attempt to open the gates of the dormitory. Only the women, held in another cell, were released. Most of the victims were Central Americans and Venezuelans.

Garduno, a former prison guard and current official at the Ministry of Education, led the National Migration Institute (INM) starting in 2019 and continued in the role until 2025 despite the fire.

The judge had previously ordered Garduno to compensate the families, provide them with free specialised medical care, issue a public apology, provide human rights training to migration personnel and guarantee that the events would not be repeated.

Zenteno acknowledged that the measures were implemented only partially because Garduno did not pay the damages as stipulated by the legal process.

Instead, Zenteno pointed out that the funds came from the INM, and the payments did not fully compensate the families. Furthermore, he added, the victims were not even informed how to access free medical services, and the apology “was a mere formality, not substantive”.

In addition to Garduno, prosecutors accused another former director of the institute of the same crimes.

Six immigration agents – including a military officer and a private security guard – and the two migrants accused of starting the fire are charged with homicide and assault. Most of the officials remain free pending trial.

The immigration agency has rejected a report from a government watchdog, making suggestions for improved body camera policy.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a United States agency that has taken a central role in President Donald Trump’s mass deportation campaign, has rejected a government report calling for its agents to wear body cameras that automatically activate.

On Wednesday, the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan agency that provides research to Congress, released a report recommending an update to ICE guidelines for camera usage.

It suggested that “automated camera activation” would be helpful in situations where “unexpected and unplanned incidents, unrelated to sensitive operations, result in use of force by or against personnel”.

“Given the important role of body-worn cameras in law enforcement activities, we maintain that additional controls are needed to help ensure that ICE personnel capture footage in accordance with policy,” the report said.

Automatic activation, it added, would address difficulties ICE agents face in manually turning on their cameras during enforcement operations.

But ICE has rejected the recommendation for automatic activation, which could be triggered by an agent pulling a gun or turning on a car siren. The agency cited privacy concerns.

But the Trump administration faces public pressure to improve transparency during its immigration raids.

Agents from ICE and other agencies such as Customs and Border Protection (CBP) have faced accusations of excessive force and civil liberties violations.

In January, two US citizens – Renee Good and Alex Pretti – were shot to death in separate shootings in Minneapolis, Minnesota, during immigration operations.

The New York Times estimated in July that immigration agents had opened fire on at least 25 people since the start of Trump’s second term. A CBS News review updated this week counts at least 30 shootings, with nine people killed and 13 others wounded.

ICE has often blamed such incidents on aggression against its agents, and it has argued that its officers have opened fire to defend themselves from danger.

But in several cases, that rationale has come under scrutiny.

Critics argued that video footage in Good’s fatal shooting disproved government statements alleging that she had weaponised her vehicle against agents. Her car, according to observers, appeared to be turning away from agents, not towards them.

In another case, ICE agent Christian Castro was accused of making false statements about a shooting that resulted in injury to Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis, a Venezuelan man living in Minneapolis.

Castro faces federal charges for allegedly lying about being attacked with a snow shovel and broom before the shooting, after video footage contradicted his account. Castro pleaded not guilty last month.

More recently, on October 8, immigration agents shot a man named Oscar Belgal in New York City while his five-year-old son was in the backseat of his car. ICE stated that Belgal appeared to be “going towards officers” in his car when they opened fire.

On Tuesday, a judge rejected the government’s effort to have Belgal deported.

Activists say better recording procedures for body camera footage could help clarify what happened in such incidents.

But the Trump administration has largely refused to implement reforms to ICE protocol.

Earlier this year, Democrats in Congress delayed funding for the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, on the basis that significant changes needed to be made to reduce incidents of excessive force.

The department said on Wednesday that automatically recording cameras could result in “the unauthorised recording of sensitive interactions with informants or victims”.

The agency added that all ICE offices had received body cameras as of August 5, but that training in their use was still ongoing and would be finished “soon”.

Grand Designs viewers were left disgruntled as Kevin McCloud returned to a build from 25 years ago.

Grand Designs viewers claimed to “turn off” the Channel 4 programme as they rushed to social media to share their complaints.

Kevin McCloud’s architectural programme has been airing a new series, which has so far seen a ‘pink cloud house’ in London built by an eccentric couple, and a Cornwall family home designed to overlook the sea. On Wednesday, 14 October, the Channel 4 show took viewers back in time 25 years, revisiting a build in Yorkshire.

It looked back on earlier Grand Designs clips, where Chris and Gill designed and built their dream home from a 19th-century Mill. Kevin shared at the start of the episode: “West Yorkshire has always been a place of innovation, manufacturing and mills.”

He spoke about the disrepair of one mill, before it was brought back to life by “gutsy pioneers”. Kevin continued: “25 years ago, Chris and Gill put that same spirit of innovation into the restoration of one of these forgotten buildings.

“They took an abandoned mill and turned it into a high-tech home, and they did it in proper Yorkshire style – no nonsense, with grit.” Gill and Chris had bought the derelict 19th-century mill in 1999, without seeing the site.

“What a dump,” Kevin had declared at the time. But the couple were determined to transform it, and had high ambitions for “a radical hybrid home”. Looking back on the build, Kevin went on: “Amazingly, it’s been a quarter of a century since I last saw Chris and Gill, that is a really long time! So long in fact, that you have to ask, have they changed? Is the building as radical as it looked then, and most importantly, how well has that building over 25 years looked after them?”

As Kevin shared their story from over two decades ago, and reflected on where Gill and Chris were now, viewers were disgruntled at the revisit, rather than a new project on their screens. A number of fans quickly took to social media to share their frustrations.

“Another pointless edition of #granddesigns,” one person fumed, as another said: “Always disappointing seeing ‘new’ @granddesigns and its the revisited version.” Someone else said: “There obviously hasn’t been many new ‘grand design’ projects in the country over the last few years as it’s a ‘revisited’ episode four shows into the new series.” Someone else replied by saying they’ve “turned it off”, as another added: “Was exactly my point too.”

Someone else wrote: “#granddesigns revisit, in other words, it’s a repeat.” However, other viewers were more excited about the revisit episode, with one sharing: “I can’t wait! This one was amazing at the time.” Someone else declared: “This was one of my favourite GD’s of all time.”

Ahead of the new series airing, Kevin spoke about the success of Grand Designs, and was asked about if the series has changed the way people build houses. He replied: “It is very chicken and egg, what came first?

“I think the great thing about television is that it can reflect society, and I think television is at its best when it is able to do that and hold a mirror up and say, this is us now. Channel 4 are very good at doing this, I think it is one of the most compelling things about the channel.

“Grand Designs has been going forever, and so the question is whether it holds a mirror up and I believe the answer is yes, it does so because we have no real formula. We find projects in the real world and we observe, that is it.

“Grand Designs strengths and its longevity are down to the fact it doesn’t really have a format other than that. It has a beginning and a conclusion, but what happens in the middle is not up to us, it is up to the people who are building. We, of course, go out of our way to find interesting and challenging projects that are more at the margins, that show us where we might be as a society in 5,10, 20 years time, not just where we are now. So, my short answer is possibly, but it is much more important for us to show examples of stuff which show the rest of society how we might be building and living in the future.”

Grand Designs airs Wednesdays at 9pm on Channel 4