Septuagenarian TV star Kelsey Grammer is still growing his family, most recently with the arrival of his newest child.
The beloved “Cheers” and “Frasier” actor, who turned 70 in February, is now a father of eight. Grammer announced he and wife Kayte Walsh welcomed their fourth child together during his appearance on the “Pod Meets World” podcast.”
We just had our fourth one, it just became eight kids,” he said during the podcast episode, published Monday. “Christopher, that’s [who] just joined the family.”
The Emmy-winning TV veteran said his newest son arrived “three days” before the episode taped and joked with podcast hosts Rider Strong, Danielle Fishel and Will Friedle that he has “clusters” of children of different ages.
Grammer and Walsh, 46, married in 2011 and also share a teenage daughter and two sons. People reported in June that the couple was expecting a child again, publishing photos of the two taking a stroll through London.
The five-time Emmy winner has been married four times. Before Walsh, he was married to dancer-model Camille Donatacci. He was also briefly married to Leigh-Anne Csuhany, and dance instructor Doreen Alderman before that. His seven other children, the eldest being actor Spencer Grammer, hail from those previous relationships.
The sitcom star became a grandfather in October 2011, when his son Spencer welcomed a son with ex-husband James Hesketh.
In the past, Grammer has been open about the “beauty of being an older dad.” He told the Guardian in 2018 that raising children later in life he feels fortunate to “get a chance to kinda try it again. That’s been a real gift.”
The actor announced the arrival of his eighth child while promoting his book “Karen: A Brother Remembers,” released in May, about the brutal murder of his sister at age 18 and his lifelong battle with grief. During the episode, Fishel asked the actor how much his children knew about his late sister.
He explained his older children have varying degrees of knowledge about his sister, while his younger kids will have to wait to learn more and read his book. “Some of the stuff is too brutal, they don’t really need to be exposed to that yet,” he said.
Throughout the podcast episode, Grammer also recalled the proceedings in his sister’s case and learning how to process the loss while delivering laughs on TV.
“I didn’t walk around talking about it a lot, it’s been with me since the day it happened,” he said.
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court rendered obsolete the 4th Amendment’s prohibition on suspicionless seizures by the police. When the court stayed the district court’s decision in Noem vs. Vasquez Perdomo, it green-lighted an era of policing in which people can be stopped and seized for little more than how they look, the job they work or the language they speak.
Because the decision was issued on the Supreme Court’s “shadow docket,” the justices’ reasoning is unknown. All we have is Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s solo concurrence defending law enforcement’s use of race and ethnicity as a factor in deciding whom to police, while at the same time playing down the risk that comes with every stop — prolonged detention, wanton violence, wrongful deportation and sometimes even death. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in her impassioned dissent (joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson): “We should not live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job.” But now, we do.
The practical effect of this decision is enormous. It strips away what little remained of the guardrails that prevented police (including agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement) from indiscriminately seizing anyone with only a flimsy pretext.
Now there is no real limit on police seizures. History teaches us that people of color will bear the brunt of this policing regime, including the millions of immigrants who are already subject to police roundups, sweeps and raids.
This decision is no surprise for those of us who study the 4th Amendment. The police have long needed very little to justify a stop, and racial profiling is not new. Yet prior to the Vasquez Perdomo order in most instances, police had to at least articulate a non-race-based reason to stop someone — even if as minor as driving with a broken taillight, not stopping at a stop sign long enough, or walking away from the police too quickly.
Now, police no longer need race-neutral person-specific suspicion (pretextual or real) to seize someone. Appearing “Latino” — itself an indeterminate descriptor because it is an ethnicity, not defined by shared physical traits — along with speaking Spanish and appearing to work a low-wage job is enough, even if you have done nothing to raise suspicion.
Some might believe that if you have nothing to hide there is no reason to fear a police stop — that if you just show police your papers or offer an explanation you can go on your way. Even if that were the case, this sort of oppressive militarized police state — where anyone can be stopped for any reason — is exactly what the 4th Amendment rejected and was meant to prevent.
Moreover, ICE agents and police are not in the business of carefully examining documents (assuming people have the right ones on them) or listening to explanations. They stop, seize and detain — citizens and noncitizens alike. If lucky, some people are released, but many are not — including citizens suspected of being in the country illegally, or individuals whose only alleged crimes are often minor (and the product of poverty) or living peacefully (often for years) in the United States without legal status. And as evidenced by plaintiffs in this case, even if eventually released, a single stop can mean harassment, violence, detention or a life permanently upended.
Even if the 4th Amendment doesn’t prevent them, can’t race-based discrimination and police violence often be addressed through civil rights lawsuits? U.S. Code Section 1983 allows individuals to sue officials who violate their rights. But the reality plays out differently. In a recent decision, this Supreme Court dramatically limited class-action lawsuits, the primary vehicle that would allow widespread relief. The court has created a world in which law enforcement can largely act with impunity under the doctrine of qualified immunity. And there is likely no recourse if a federal official such as an ICE agent violates one’s constitutional rights, as the Supreme Court has sharply limited the ability to sue federal officials for money damages even if they commit a clear constitutional wrong.
The recent decision virtually declaring that the 4th Amendment allows police to engage in express racial profiling may not be the final word on the matter. We hope it isn’t. But longstanding court doctrine had already allowed racial profiling to flourish under the guise of seemingly neutral language of “reasonable suspicion” and “consent.” By allowing a further erosion of the limits on seizures, the Court entrenches a system in which the scope of one’s constitutional rights depends upon the color of one’s skin. If the 4th Amendment is to retain meaning, it must be interpreted to constrain — not enable — the racialized policing practices that have become routine in America.
Daniel Harawa and Kate Weisburd are law professors at NYU Law School and UC Law San Francisco, respectively.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The Supreme Court’s stay in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo has effectively rendered the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on suspicionless seizures obsolete, allowing law enforcement to stop and detain individuals based primarily on their appearance, language, and occupation rather than individualized suspicion of wrongdoing.
This decision represents a dangerous expansion of police authority that strips away constitutional guardrails, enabling officers to seize people with only flimsy pretexts and fundamentally altering the balance between law enforcement power and individual rights.
People of color and immigrants will disproportionately suffer under this new policing regime, as the decision legitimizes racial profiling by allowing stops based on appearing “Latino,” speaking Spanish, and working in low-wage occupations.
The ruling creates an oppressive police state where anyone can be stopped for any reason, directly contradicting the Fourth Amendment’s original purpose of preventing such indiscriminate government seizures and representing exactly what the constitutional provision was designed to prevent.
Available civil rights remedies are inadequate to address these violations, as the Supreme Court has systematically limited class-action lawsuits, expanded qualified immunity protections for law enforcement, and restricted the ability to sue federal officials for constitutional violations.
Different views on the topic
Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence emphasizes that immigration enforcement stops based on reasonable suspicion represent a longstanding and legitimate law enforcement tool, particularly in high-immigration areas like Los Angeles where an estimated 10% of the population may be undocumented[1].
The government’s enforcement actions rely not solely on race but on a combination of four specific factors that, when considered together, can establish reasonable suspicion under established precedent such as United States v. Brignoni-Ponce (1975)[1].
Proponents argue that judicial consistency and neutrality require courts to avoid improperly restricting reasonable Executive Branch enforcement of immigration laws, just as courts should not compel greater enforcement, with Justice Kavanaugh noting that “consistency and neutrality are hallmarks of good judging”[3].
The Supreme Court found that the government was likely to succeed on appeal due to potential issues with the plaintiffs’ legal standing and questions about Fourth Amendment compliance, suggesting the lower court’s injunction may have been legally flawed[1].
Some legal observers note that the district court’s injunction created ambiguity about what enforcement actions remain permissible, with Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Sotomayor characterizing the injunction’s scope very differently, indicating the legal parameters were unclear[2].
However you might be feeling about the state of our country this long holiday weekend (me: angry, troubled, resolute in staying aligned with the progressive values that truly move our nation forward), I hope you have time to rest and regroup. Here are three suggestions for eating and drinking this weekend: They’re places that brought me some recent, needed joy.
Bar Benjamin
Not long after the Benjamin opened in Hollywood early last summer, I showed up hoping for a couple unreserved seats at the bar, situated in the center of the restaurant’s posh Art Deco room. No go. The staffer put us on a wait list and suggested we hang out at the Moon Room bar located above the restaurant.
We climbed the stairs and peeked in. I could roll with the New York 1970s nostalgia vibe — parquet floors with checkered tiles around the bar counter, wild art, a baby grand. That night, though, the place was so empty it looked lonely. We took a walk until the Benjamin called us back.
Riding on the success of the glamour downstairs, owners Ben Shenassafar, Kate Burr and Jared Meisler reintroduced Moon Room (which Meisler had opened last spring) as Bar Benjamin, replicating the same tasteful woods, moss-colored velvets and dim chandelier lighting as the restaurant below. Much, much improved.
Last Laugh and Everything Gibson cocktails at Bar Benjamin in Hollywood
(Bill Addison / Los Angeles Times)
The group brought in two ace bartenders: Chad Austin and Jason Lee. I’m particularly a fan of Lee: A few years back he crafted a summertime cocktail at n/soto of ice, shaved to order, over watermelon juice laced with amaro and lime juice. Then he moved on to Baroo, masterfully devising drinks around Korean spirits or kombucha that synched with Kwang Uh’s singular cooking.
At Bar Benjamin, he and Austin distill many of the cuisines that define Los Angeles (Mexican, Thai, Sichuan, Persian) into liquid odes. To work backwards, there’s a fun play on the ubiquitous Iranian stew fesenjoon that includes Granada Vallet pomegranate liqueur and walnut-rice orgeat that’s sweet enough to qualify as dessert. To start, I’d lean more toward the bumblebee-yellow, mezcal-spiked Last Laugh bright with saffron, pineapple, bell pepper and mango.
A Gibson infused with the essence of an everything bagel? A bit intense in its pickled flavors for me. But then again, I lean purist in the martini realms. I’ll choose the lemony Ben’s Martini that also happens to nicely match the very edited selection of small plates, including mustardy beef tartare and dilled shrimp salad in a brioche bun.
An ikura-topped shrimp roll at Bar Benjamin.
(Stephanie Breijo / Los Angeles Times)
A fun, fizzing crowd filled the space on a recent weeknight visit. But even if I came upon Bar Benjamin with few customers, the new cocooned atmosphere would be one I’d be happy to have to myself.
Fusion Kitchen
How might a bowl of warm borscht appeal in summertime temperatures?
The broth at the version served at Fusion Kitchen in Mid-Wilshire is light, for starters. Chunks of stewed tomato and grated beets and carrot gently vary the textures. Every third or fourth spoonful catches a few strands of beef. Taste first, and then stir in a couple splotches of sour cream. On the side are toasted triangles of rye bread and several slices of melt-on-the-tongue salo — salt pork, similar to Italian lardo, that is ubiquitous to Ukrainian culture.
I’ve been hungering for more tastes of Eastern European food since writing about Noroc, a restaurant in Sacramento that serves Moldovan dishes, for the 101 Best Restaurants in California guide.
With a name as unfortunately generic as Fusion Kitchen, you need to know what you’re looking for. This was previously known as the second location of Mom, Please, the Ukrainian draw in Playa Vista opened by Oleksii Kochetkov, his wife, Inna Kochetkova, and his mother, Olena Kochetkova. The same owners run Fusion Kitchen; only the name changed.
Borsht (center) and other Ukrainian dishes at Fusion Kitchen LA
(Bill Addison / Los Angeles Times)
After blitzing through the menu, I have a few strong recommendations beyond borscht. Cabbage rolls show off the same gravity-defying sleight of hand, improbably delicate wrappers bundling minced beef and vegetables scented with basil. Among varenyky and pelmeni, the half-moon dumplings filled with mashed potato and dressed in mushroom sauce turned out to be the most compelling.
And among many options for desserts, zero in on the medovic, or honey cake. It doesn’t have the zillion layers of, say, Michelle Polzine’s fame-making version at her now-closed 20th Century Cafe in San Francisco. Its sour cream frosting zings, though, with the crucial sweet-smokiness of burnt honey.
Manila Inasal
I’m ordering too much as usual, calling out chef Natalia Moran’s modern takes on Filipino standards: lumpia, sisig, lechon, adobo, kare kare, garlic rice … .
When I’m done, the server studies me. “You forgot to order the signature dish,” she says. “There’s a reason our name is Manila Inasal.”
Oops. Thanks goodness she steered me right.
Chicken may be the traditional choice for this class of thoroughly marinated and grilled dishes, but the bungus inasal, made with silvery milkfish, is particularly wonderful here. Achiote stains the fish, which has also absorbed the aromatics of lemongrass, ginger and sharply citrusy calamansi juice. Swipe forkfuls through two sauces, one based on green chile and the other on coconut vinegar. With a bit of cucumber salad spooned on the plate, it’s a refreshing warm weather meal.
A spread of dishes at Manila Inasal in Silver Lake
(Bill Addison / Los Angeles Times)
To dive deeper: start with always-easy-to-crunch lumpia or, even better, laing, taro leaves creamed in coconut milk with seasonings like garlic, ginger and shrimp paste. Moran’s take is restrained, but pleasantly so, and she presents it as an appetizer dip surrounded by focaccia baked with taro leaves. The vegetable pancit satisfyingly mingles egg and glassy vermicelli noodles in a soy-based sauce with thrumming umami.
Meatier dishes I tried like the kare kare with ultra-tender cuts of beef (including oxtail) and lechon could have been punchier in their flavors; it’s hard not to compare them with the masterful versions Maynard Llera prepares at Kuya Lord. As my colleague Stephanie Breijo reported in June, the restaurant opened two months in Silver Lake Plaza, in the same complex on Virgil Avenue that houses Daybird. So it’s still settling in and calibrating.
The namesake inasal? I’m already all in.
Also …
Karla Marie Sanford reports on the fear gripping the restaurant community in aftermath of ICE’s arrival in Los Angeles. This quote states the crisis succinctly: “The industry is deeply confused,” said Corissa Hernandez, the owner of Nativo, a Mexican bar and restaurant in Highland Park. “We’re alarmed. We’re frustrated about the lack of transparency, especially legal clarity. We’re business owners, we’re not immigration experts.”
Sanford also reports on the reopening of Gladstones, the iconic seafood restaurant in Pacific Palisades, that closed for six months after sustaining damage in the Palisades fire.
July 2 (UPI) — The Pentagon is establishing a fourth military defense zone along the U.S.-Mexico border, where American soldiers can apprehend noncitizens on charges of trespassing, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman Sean Parnell said Wednesday, amid the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration.
The fourth National Defense Area will be controlled by the U.S. Navy and encompass approximately 140 miles of federal property along the U.S.-Mexico border near the Barry M. Goldwater Range in Arizona.
The announcement comes a week after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth directed the establishment of a 250-mile NDA along the Rio Grande River in Texas’ Cameron and Hidalgo Counties, which is to be controlled by the U.S. Air Force.
The first NDA was established on April 21, spanning 170 miles along the New Mexico border, followed by the second erected on May 1 in West Texas, covering 63 miles between El Paso and Fort Hancock.
The NDAs are zones where U.S. military personnel can temporarily detain alleged trespassers, in this case, those who are seeking to enter the United States via Mexico, and transfer them to appropriate law enforcement authorities.
The authorization for their creation comes under President Donald Trump‘s April 11 memorandum directing the U.S. military to seal the southern border to repel an alleged “invasion” of immigrants trying to enter the country. And the military’s ability to perform immigration law enforcement duties follows a March 20 order from Hegseth to become involved in border operations.
Parnell announced the creation of the fourth military buffer zone during a regular press conference Wednesday while updating reporters on the military’s immigration activities.
He said there are approximately 8,500 U.S. soldiers performing duties with Joint Task Force Southern Border, and since March 20, days after the task force was formed, they have conducted more than 3,500 patrols.
The militarization of the U.S. southern border is part of Trump’s plan to crack down on immigration after having been elected following a campaign during which he often spouted derogatory rhetoric and misinformation about immigrants while vowing to conduct mass deportations.
According to Parnell, the relationship between the military and Customs and Border Protection “yielded exceptional results between June 28 and June 30 with zero gotaways across the entire southern border.
“We have made incredible progress and will continue to work toward achieving 100% operational control of the border,” he said.
This Fourth of July, patriotism for many Americans feels a bit slippery.
As citizens of our near 250-year-old republic reminisce about the Independence Days of their childhoods — adorned with American flag motifs and smelling of charred hot dogs — some, particularly in 2025, are wrestling with thoughts about what it means to love one’s country.
Such dialogue has exploded as protesters over the last month have publicly condemned ongoing immigration enforcement raids. In L.A., several communities fearing the consequences of those raids are canceling their Independence Day events in an effort to protect vulnerable residents.
Organizers of the Gloria Molina Grand Park Summer Block Party in downtown L.A. posted on Instagram that they postponed the annual event “out of an abundance of caution and in light of ongoing events across L.A. county.”
Although celebrating American independence may look different this year, L.A. still has a spirited slate of parades, concerts, boat rides and firework shows where you can show your patriotism — whatever that means to you.
Here is a list of 52 places and events in L.A. County to ring in the holiday. (Events start Wednesday and continue through Sunday, but be sure to watch for any new cancellations.)
WEST SACRAMENTO — Taylor Ward hit a two-run homer, Nolan Schanuel also went deep and the Angels beat the skidding Athletics 4-3 on Monday night in the opener of a four-game series.
Kenley Jansen struck out Tyler Soderstrom for the final out with a runner on second. Coming off a surprising three-game sweep at Dodger Stadium, the Angels (21-25) have won four in a row to start a seven-game trip.
The Athletics (22-26) have lost six straight and 10 of 12, falling to 8-14 at Sutter Health Park.
Schanuel, who had three hits and scored twice, connected off J.T. Ginn for his third homer this season to give the Angels the lead two batters into the game. Ginn was activated to make his fourth start of the year and first since April 24, when elbow inflammation landed him on the 10-day injured list.
Lawrence Butler’s double, a walk and a hit batter loaded the bases with nobody out in the bottom of the first against Angels starter José Soriano. Butler scored when Brent Rooker grounded into a double play, and Shea Langeliers’ infield single made it 2-1.
Zach Neto singled and Schanuel doubled to start the third. Yoán Moncada had an RBI groundout before Ward hit his 13th homer for a 4-2 lead.
Soderstrom doubled with two outs in the fifth and scored on Rooker’s single to make it 4-3.
Soriano (3-4) went six innings, giving up three runs on six hits and four walks. Jansen gave up a two-out single to Jacob Wilson in the ninth before pinch-runner Max Schuemann stole second. Jansen fanned Soderstrom on three pitches for his ninth save in nine opportunities.
Ginn (1-2) left after four innings and 79 pitches, yielding four runs and six hits with seven strikeouts.
Key moment: Soriano loaded the bases with one out in the third before striking out Langeliers and Nick Kurtz swinging to escape unscathed.
Key stat: Rooker has a 15-game hitting streak against the Angels. Bill North set the club record in the series at 17 games spanning the 1974 and ’75 seasons.
Up next: RHP Kyle Hendricks (1-5, 5.18 ERA) pitches Tuesday for the Angels against RHP Gunnar Hoglund (1-1, 3.78), who makes his fourth career start.
