Attorney

Reporting from Sacramento — An Assembly panel on Tuesday recommended the confirmation of Los Angeles Rep. Xavier Becerra as state attorney general after the nominee pledged to aggressively defend state policies on immigration, civil rights and the environment against potential attacks by President-elect Donald Trump’s incoming administration.

Before the panel’s 6-3 vote in favor of confirmation, with all Republicans opposed, Co-Chairman Reggie Jones-Sawyer (D-Los Angeles) told Becerra that he expects the state will become involved in a “long and ferocious and hard-fought legal war” with the federal government.

“Now more than ever we need an attorney general who will defend our values and stand up to the next administration’s backward vision for America,” Jones-Sawyer said during the hearing, denouncing Trump’s campaign rhetoric as “xenophobic.”

Gov. Jerry Brown introduced Becerra at the two-hour hearing, warning that “there are big battles ahead” and calling his nominee an “outstanding candidate that can certainly champion the causes we believe in.”

The nomination still must be acted on by the full Assembly, which is scheduled to vote Friday, as well as the Senate. The Senate Rules Committee will hold a confirmation hearing Jan. 18.

Becerra was questioned for more than an hour by members of the Assembly Special Committee on the Office of the Attorney General. He told them he is ready to fight for the state’s values. He told the panel that as the son of hardworking immigrants, he is committed to fighting any federal policy that takes away the rights of Californians who are playing by the rules.

“As California’s chief law enforcement officer and legal advocate, I am going to be ready to deploy those values and life lessons to advance and defend the rights — big and small — of all Californians,” Becerra told the panel. “Everyone who plays by California’s rules deserves to know, ‘We’ve got your back.’ ”

The 12-term congressman said he supports the state’s policies protecting the environment and civil rights. He said he opposes racial profiling by police and the stop-and-frisk policies of other cities.

With Trump proposing mass deportations and registration of immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries, Becerra said, “the head winds from outside of California could threaten the basic rights of so many families like the one I grew up in.”

“At risk is the notion that anyone who, like my parents and yours, works hard and builds this country can dream to own their own home, send their kids to college, earn a dignified retirement,” he said.

Asked about threats of cuts in federal funding to sanctuary cities, Becerra said cities will not protect violent criminals.

“‘Sanctuary’ is simply saying we are not going to go out there and do the bidding of an aggressive immigration enforcement agency.”

Updates from Sacramento »

Becerra noted that federal law, on occasion, preempts state law, but he said he will be vigilant in ensuring that the state’s laws are preserved to the extent possible.

“If we have laws in place, we have every right to protect those laws,” Becerra said. “And while the federal government has preemption authority in most cases against the state for matters that are federal in nature, the federal government would have to prove that what it’s doing is federal in nature and that it isn’t violating the state’s rights to enact laws that improve the welfare of its people.

“You will find me being as aggressive as possible working with all of you to figure out ways that we can make sure there is no federal intrusion in areas that are really left to the state in the U.S. Constitution.”

Republican members called on Becerra to make fighting crime his top priority and said they had concerns about the attorney general failing to defend the rights of gun owners and religious institutions facing interference by the state government.

Assemblyman James Gallagher (R-Plumas Lake) complained about religious nonprofits being told by the state they must inform clients of the availability of abortion services even if it is against their beliefs.

Becerra tried to lighten the mood in the face of deeply philosophical questions.

“You’re getting into some subjects that probably require a few beers,” Becerra said, offering to buy Gallagher a round so they could talk about weighty issues.

Some 50 people testified, with support coming from groups such as the Sierra Club, Los Angeles Police Protective League, Equality California and several labor unions. Only two people objected to the nomination, including an American Independent Party member who questioned whether Becerra had enough years serving as an attorney to be qualified.

Craig DeLuz of the Firearms Policy Coalition said his group wants a state attorney general who can protect the constitutional rights of gun owners.

“Unfortunately, based on the record, we simply do not believe that this nominee is capable of doing that,” DeLuz told the panel.

The National Rifle Assn. also opposed Becerra in a letter.

[email protected]

Follow @mcgreevy99 on Twitter

ALSO

Four former attorneys general and 38 members of Congress write to support Rep. Xavier Becerra for state AG

Political Road Map: The only thing ‘special’ about California special elections is the cost to taxpayers

Who’s in and who’s out in the race to replace Rep. Xavier Becerra in Congress

FORT PIERCE, Fla. — A federal trial is scheduled to begin Monday for a man charged with trying to assassinate Donald Trump as he played golf in Florida in September 2024.

Jury selection is expected to take three days, with attorneys questioning three sets of 60 prospective jurors. They’re trying to find 12 jurors and four alternates. Opening statements are scheduled to begin Thursday, and prosecutors will begin their case immediately after that. The court has blocked off four weeks for the trial, but attorneys are expecting they’ll need less time.

Here’s what to know about the case:

Defendant to represent himself

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon signed off in July on Ryan Routh’s request to represent himself during his trial, but said court-appointed attorneys need to remain as standby counsel.

The judge told Routh she believes it’s a bad idea for him to represent himself, but he wouldn’t be dissuaded. Routh, who has described the extent of his education as two years of college after earning his GED certificate, told Cannon that he understood the potential challenges and would be ready.

Cannon confirmed during a recent hearing that Routh would be dressed in professional business attire for the trial. She also explained to Routh that he would be allowed to use a podium while speaking to the jury or questioning witnesses, but he would not have free rein of the courtroom.

“If you make any sudden movements, marshals will take decisive and quick action to respond,” Cannon said.

Self-styled mercenary leader

The 59-year-old Routh was a North Carolina construction worker who in recent years had moved to Hawaii. A self-styled mercenary leader, Routh spoke out to anyone who would listen about his dangerous, sometimes violent plans to insert himself into conflicts around the world, witnesses have told the Associated Press.

In the early days of the war in Ukraine, Routh tried to recruit soldiers from Afghanistan, Moldova and Taiwan to fight the Russians. In his native Greensboro, N.C., he had a 2002 arrest for eluding a traffic stop and barricading himself from officers with a fully automatic machine gun and a “weapon of mass destruction,” which turned out to be an explosive with a 10-inch-long fuse.

In 2010, police searched a warehouse Routh owned and found more than 100 stolen items, including power tools, building supplies, kayaks and spa tubs. In both felony cases, judges gave Routh either probation or a suspended sentence.

Attempted assassination charge

Authorities said Routh tried to assassinate Trump, then the Republican nominee for president, while Trump played golf at his club in West Palm Beach, Fla.

Routh is facing five felony counts in federal court in Fort Pierce. They include attempted assassination of a major presidential candidate, possessing a firearm to carry out a violent crime, assaulting a federal officer, being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, and possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number.

In addition to the federal charges, Routh also has pleaded not guilty to state charges of terrorism and attempted murder.

Same judge presided over Trump case

Cannon is the same judge who presided over another high-profile case involving Trump — the classified documents case against him.

Last year, Cannon, who was nominated to the bench by Trump during his first term, sided with Trump’s lawyers who said the special counsel who filed the charges was illegally appointed by the U.S. Justice Department.

Cannon’s ruling halted a criminal case that, at the time it was filed, was widely regarded as the most perilous of all the legal threats the president faced before he returned to office in January. The felony case was being appealed when Trump was elected in November, after which that and other criminal indictments against him were dismissed, following a Justice Department policy not to charge a sitting president.

No signs of shots fired

Trump was uninjured, and there’s no evidence that Routh fired his weapon at the golf course. U.S. Secret Service agents stationed a few holes up from where Trump was playing golf noticed the muzzle of an AK-style rifle sticking through the shrubbery that lines the course, roughly 400 yards away. An agent fired, and the gunman dropped the rifle and fled in an SUV, leaving the firearm behind along with two backpacks, a scope used for aiming and a GoPro camera. He was later stopped by law enforcement in a neighboring county.

That alleged assassination attempt took place nine weeks after Trump survived another attempt on his life, in Pennsylvania, when a gunman’s bullet grazed the candidate’s ear during a rally.

Fischer writes for the Associated Press.

Attorneys for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said in a Friday letter that they intend to send Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the African nation of Eswatini after he expressed a fear of deportation to Uganda.

The letter from ICE to Abrego Garcia’s attorneys was earlier reported by Fox News. It states that his fear of persecution or torture in Uganda is “hard to take seriously, especially given that you have claimed (through your attorneys) that you fear persecution or torture in at least 22 different countries. … Nonetheless, we hereby notify you that your new country of removal is Eswatini.”

Human rights groups have documented violations and abuses in Uganda — as well as in Eswatini, a tiny African kingdom formerly known as Swaziland.

Eswatini’s government spokesperson told the Associated Press on Saturday that it had received no communication regarding Abrego Garcia’s transfer there.

The Salvadoran man lived in Maryland for more than a decade before he was mistakenly deported to El Salvador earlier this year. That set off a series of contentious court battles that have turned his case into a test of the limits of President Trump’s hard-line immigration policies.

Although Abrego Garcia immigrated to the U.S. illegally around 2011 as a teenager, he has an American wife and child. A 2019 immigration court order barred his deportation to his native El Salvador, finding he had a credible fear of threats from gangs there. He was deported anyway in March — in what a government attorney said was an administrative error — and held in the country’s notorious Terrorism Confinement Center, known as CECOT.

Facing a court order, the Trump administration returned him to the U.S. in June only to charge him with human smuggling based on a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee. Though that court case is ongoing, ICE now seeks to deport him again. Abrego Garcia, who denies the charges, is requesting asylum in the United States.

He was denied asylum in 2019 because his request came more than a year after he arrived in the U.S., his attorney Simon Sandoval-Mosenberg has said. Since he was deported and has now reentered the U.S., the attorney said, he is now eligible for asylum.

“If Mr. Abrego Garcia is allowed a fair trial in immigration court, there’s no way he’s not going to prevail on his claim,” he said in an emailed statement.

As part of his asylum claim, Abrego Garcia expressed a fear of deportation to Uganda and “nearly two dozen” other countries, according to an ICE court filing in opposition to reopening his asylum case. That Thursday filing also states that if the case is reopened, the 2019 order barring his deportation to El Salvador would become void and the government would pursue his removal to that country.

Loller writes for the Associated Press.

Sept. 4 (UPI) — The District of Columbia has filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump for bringing in National Guard soldiers to police its streets.

The suit alleges that “the President has launched an unprecedented assault on the District’s sovereignty.”

“We are suing to defend D.C. home rule and stop the unlawful deployment of the National Guard,” said Washington, D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb in an X post Thursday. “Our nation was founded on the fundamental principles of freedom and self-governance that are stake in this case.”

Schwalb posted several times to explain the situation.

“The National Guard deployment does not only undermine public safety,” he wrote in a separate post. “It also hurts D.C.’s economy — depressing vital industries like restaurants, hotels, and tourism.”

“And critically, it infringes on D.C.’s sovereign authority and right to self-governance under the Home Rule Act,” he added.

Schwalb went on to state that more troops arrived in the district this week and noted that President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order last week that “directs the creation of a dedicated D.C. National Guard unit to ‘enforce Federal law.'”

That order titled “Additional Measures to Address the Crime Emergency in the District of Columbia,” tells the Secretary of Defense to create “a specialized unit within the District of Columbia National Guard” that would be deputized to do as Schwalb described.

Around 2,300 National Guard troops have been deployed in Washington, D.C., since mid-August, who have joined with other federal agents and the District’s Metropolitan Police Department to ramp up patrols throughout the city.

Schwalb further declared that Trump’s use of the National Guard in the district is illegal under the Posse Comitatus Act, which bans the use of any part of the Army or Air Force to execute law enforcement unless authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress.

“Yet the Administration launched a massive, indefinite law enforcement operation in DC under direct military command,” Schwalb wrote. “This is plainly illegal, and it threatens our democracy and civil liberties.”

He also declared that the deployment denies the District of the local autonomy granted by the Home Rule Act, under which the elected Council of the District of Columbia adopts laws and approves the District’s annual budget in conjunction with the District’s mayor.

The lawsuit comes at a time when House Republicans are considering legislation to remove Schwalb, who was elected to his post in 2022, and replace him with a presidential appointee, according to a Thursday report by The Washington Post.

HARLINGEN, Texas — A U.S. judge at least temporarily blocked the government Sunday from deporting a group of Guatemalan children who had crossed the border without their families, after their lawyers said the youngsters were loaded onto planes overnight in violation of laws affording protections for migrant kids.

Attorneys for 10 Guatemalan children, ages 10 to 17, said in court papers filed late Saturday that there were reports that planes were set to take off within hours for the Central American country. But a federal judge in Washington said those children couldn’t be deported for at least 14 days, and after a hastily scheduled hearing Sunday, she emphasized that they needed to be taken off the planes and back to the Office of Refugee Resettlement facilities while the legal process plays out.

“I do not want there to be any ambiguity,” said Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan, who said her ruling applies broadly to Guatemalan minors who arrived in the U.S. without their parents or guardians.

Government lawyers, meanwhile, maintained that the children weren’t being deported but rather reunited at the request of their parents or guardians — a claim that the children’s lawyers dispute, at least in some cases.

Similar emergency requests were filed in other parts of the country as well. Attorneys in Arizona and Illinois asked federal judges there to block deportations of unaccompanied minors, underscoring how the fight over the government’s efforts has quickly spread.

Immigrant advocates react

The episode has raised alarms among immigrant advocates, who say it may represent a violation of federal laws designed to protect children who arrive without their parents. While the deportations are on hold for now, the case underscores the high-stakes clash between the government’s immigration enforcement efforts and the legal safeguards that Congress created for some of the most vulnerable migrants.

At the border-area airport, the scene Sunday morning was unmistakably active. Buses carrying migrants pulled onto the tarmac as clusters of federal agents moved quickly between the vehicles and waiting aircraft. Police cars circled the perimeter, and officers and security guards pushed reporters back from the chain-link fences that line the field. On the runway, planes sat with engines idling, ground crews making final preparations as if departures could come at any moment — all as the courtroom battle played out hundreds of miles away in Washington.

Shaina Aber of Acacia Center for Justice, an immigrant legal defense group, said it was notified Saturday evening that an official list had been drafted with the names of Guatemalan children whom the U.S. administration would attempt to send back to their home country. Advocates learned that the flights would leave from the Texas cities of Harlingen and El Paso, Aber said.

She said she’d heard that federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials “were still taking the children,” having not gotten any guidance about the court order.

The Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Department of Health and Human Services did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Sunday.

Plans to remove nearly 700 Guatemalan children

The Trump administration is planning to remove nearly 700 Guatemalan children who came to the U.S. unaccompanied, according to a letter sent Friday by Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon. The Guatemalan government has said it is ready to take them in.

It is another step in the Trump administration’s sweeping immigration enforcement efforts, which include plans to send a surge of officers to Chicago for an immigration crackdown, ramping up deportations and ending protections for people who have had permission to live and work in the United States.

Lawyers for the Guatemalan children said the U.S. government doesn’t have the authority to remove the youngsters and is depriving them of due process by preventing them from pursuing asylum claims or immigration relief. Many have active cases in immigration courts, according to the attorneys’ court filing in Washington.

Although the children are supposed to be in the care and custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, the government is “illegally transferring them to Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody to put them on flights to Guatemala, where they may face abuse, neglect, persecution, or torture,” argues the filing by attorneys with the Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights and the National Immigration Law Center.

An attorney with another advocacy group, the National Center for Youth Law, said the organization started hearing a few weeks ago from legal service providers that agents from Homeland Security Investigations — ICE’s investigative arm — were interviewing children, particularly from Guatemala, in Office of Refugee Resettlement facilities.

The agents asked the children about their relatives in Guatemala, said the attorney, Becky Wolozin.

Then on Friday, advocates across the country began getting word that their young clients’ immigration court hearings were being canceled, Wolozin said.

Migrant children traveling without their parents or guardians are handed over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement when they are encountered by officials along the U.S.-Mexico border. Once in the U.S., the children often live in government-supervised shelters or with foster care families until they can be released to a sponsor — usually a family member — living in the country.

The minors can request asylum, juvenile immigration status or visas for victims of sexual exploitation.

Due to their age and often traumatic experiences getting to the U.S., their treatment is one of the most sensitive issues in immigration. Advocacy groups already have sued to ask courts to halt new Trump administration vetting procedures for unaccompanied children, saying the changes are keeping families separated longer and are inhumane.

Guatemala willing to receive the unaccompanied minors

Guatemalan Foreign Affairs Minister Carlos Martínez said Friday that the government has told the U.S. it is willing to receive hundreds of Guatemalan minors who arrived in the U.S. unaccompanied and are being held in government facilities.

Guatemala is particularly concerned about minors who could pass age limits for the children’s facilities and be sent to adult detention centers, he said.

President Bernardo Arévalo has said that his government has a moral and legal obligation to advocate for the children. His comments came days after U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem visited Guatemala.

Gonzalez and Santana write for the Associated Press and reported from Harlingen and Washington, respectively. AP writers Jennifer Peltz in New York and Corey Williams in Detroit contributed to this report.

Francisco Longoria, a San Bernardino man who was driving his truck when a masked U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer shot at it, has been arrested and charged by federal authorities. They allege he assaulted immigration officers during the incident.

In a statement, Longoria’s attorneys said Homeland Security Investigations agents arrived at the Longoria household at 4:18 a.m. Thursday, with an armored personnel carrier, a type of military vehicle, and deployed more than a dozen “fully armed and armored” agents to swarm the home, breaking the locks on his gate. An agent called out to Longoria to come out, using a bullhorn, as agents stood at each door and pointed their rifles at the door and at the occupants inside, the attorneys said.

“These are the type of tactics reserved for dangerous criminals such as violent gang members, drug lords, and terrorists,” the attorneys said. “It was clearly intended to intimidate and punish Mr. Longoria and his family for daring to speak out about their attempted murder by ICE and CBP agents on August 16th.”

On that day, federal immigration officers stopped Longoria in San Bernardino. During the encounter, Longoria, who was in his truck with his 18-year-old son and 23-year-old son-in-law, feared for his safety and drove off after masked officers shattered his car window, his attorneys said.

Department of Homeland Security officials have said officers were injured during the encounter when Longoria tried to “run them down.” Longoria’s attorneys dispute their client injured the officers or attempted to hit them, and earlier this week they called for an investigation of the shooting.

On Friday morning, the U.S. attorney’s office confirmed that Homeland Security Investigations agents arrested Longoria the day before. Word of his arrest was earlier reported by the San Bernardino Sun.

Ciaran McEvoy, spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles, said Longoria made an initial appearance before a U.S. District Court judge in Riverside, and is set to be arraigned on Sept. 30. The federal magistrate judge ordered him released on a $5,000 bond.

Longoria was being held at the San Bernardino County jail, in custody of the U.S. Marshals Service, as of Thursday afternoon, McEvoy said in an email.

“Since Longoria is an illegal alien, ICE has a detainer on him,” he said. Longoria’s attorneys said their client was transferred into Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody as of Friday.

An unnamed Department of Homeland Security spokesperson confirmed federal agents arrested Longoria at his home.

“CBP and ICE remain committed to enforcing the law, protecting officers, and keeping dangerous criminals off America’s streets — even as local officials in California undermine those efforts,” the official said.

According to a criminal complaint submitted by a Homeland Security Investigations agent, whose name is redacted, Longoria is facing a charge of assault on a federal officer with a deadly/dangerous weapon.

In the complaint, the agent, who interviewed the officers who stopped Longoria, said the officers had stopped Longoria’s GMC pickup truck to conduct “an immigration check.” Two of them were ICE officers and the other two were CBP officers.

The complaint states that the officers were identifiable by their visible clothing marked with “police.”

After they stopped Longoria’s truck, the complaint states, he refused to comply with the demands to turn off his vehicle and roll down the window. One of the CBP officers, identified as J.C., decided to break the window after Longoria refused the commands, and was allegedly struck by the driver’s door on his left elbow and left calf. The passenger side window was also shattered by agents during the encounter.

Another CBP officer was allegedly struck by the front bumper/fender of the truck on his right leg. “The Truck kept pushing Officer S.T., and Officer S.T. shot at the Truck, afraid for his life,” according to the complaint.

Longoria’s attorneys had previously released surveillance video of the incident, which appears to dispute a key claim by Homeland Security — that Longoria drove his truck toward officers and injured them.

In the surveillance video, the moment Longoria drives away, officers on both sides of the truck remain in sight of the video, and they then pile into their vehicles and pursue Longoria’s truck down a side street.

After Longoria drove off, the family called 911. While San Bernardino police were questioning Longoria, the immigration officers arrived, and family members identified the one they believed had shot at the truck.

At the initial court appearance, the judge questioned the assistant U.S. attorney prosecuting the case, Cory Burleson, about the government’s claim that it was conducting an “immigration check,” a term he couldn’t clarify when asked by the court, according to Longoria’s attorneys. Burleson also claimed Longoria was stopped due to a traffic violation, but couldn’t identify the violation, his attorneys said. When the judge asked Burleson to identify the alleged injuries of the officers, Burleson said he was “not aware of any injuries,” Longoria’s attorneys said.

Longoria’s attorneys said their client was granted bond, but because of the ICE hold, has since been transferred into ICE custody, which they believe is the “true purpose of this false and baseless charge.”

“No reasonable prosecutor could believe that a conviction would be secured against Mr. Longoria for the August 16th stop, when every video supports Mr. Longoria’s version of events and directly contradicts DHS’ story,” his attorneys said. “Yet [the Department of Justice] will not drop the charges; it has been their practice during this Administration to pursue charges based on unsubstantiated and false affidavits in order to arrest individuals and then turn them over to ICE.”

His attorneys said they intend to continue advocating for Longoria, his son and son-in-law.

“We are in contact with local and State authorities and are encouraging a state investigation and criminal charges against the ICE/CBP agents,” the attorneys said.

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

Attorneys for a documentary filmmaker who sued the city of Los Angeles for excessive police force said Wednesday that they had reached a settlement over claims their client was assaulted by an LAPD officer at a 2021 protest.

The settlement came abruptly after the first day of the civil trial, when the plaintiff, Vishal Singh, was accosted by a man, with his phone out recording, as Singh walked out of the federal courthouse downtown. Christian Contreras, an attorney for Singh, identified the man who confronted his client as Tomas Morales, a prominent alt-right livestreamer.

Proceedings had just wrapped up for the day Tuesday when Morales approached Singh, Contreras and others as they walked out of the glass-paneled building at 1st and Hill streets, according to video posted on social media.

Morales posted a clip on his Instagram account in which he can be heard demanding to know whether Singh still wants to “burn LAPD to the ground” and asking whether he is a member of “antifa.” The barrage of questions continued as the group walked up Hill away from the courthouse, the video shows.

Morales didn’t immediately respond to a message sent Wednesday to his account on X.

Contreras said Singh was so shaken by the encounter that his attorneys pushed the judge to declare a mistrial on the grounds that Morales was trying to intimidate a party to the case. After the judge declined to grant their motion, the two sides agreed to settle for an unspecified amount of money, Contreras said.

Larger settlements require a final sign-off from the City Council.

Even if the case ended in an “anticlimactic” fashion, Contreras said that “there has been some accountability” since jurors saw videos of Los Angeles Police Department officers using excessive force against Singh and others.

“He was looking forward to taking this case to a full resolution at trial, and this issue came up,” Contreras said. “It’s unsettling, but he just wants to move forward in his life.”

Singh said in the lawsuit and interviews with The Times that Singh was standing in the middle of Coronado Street outside a Koreatown establishment called Wi Spa, filming a confrontation between left-wing and far-right groups. Bystander video showed Singh rapidly walking backward as instructed by police and filming with a phone from behind a parked car when an officer leaned over and swung his baton at Singh like it was a “baseball bat.” The impact fractured a joint in Singh’s right hand and two of Singh’s fingers, the lawsuit said.

The officer, John Jenal, argued in court documents that he did not perceive the object in Singh’s raised and outstretched hand to be a phone, and that he saw Singh as an immediate threat.

“I’m relieved that there’s both compensation and validation for what Vishal has experienced through this settlement,” said Adam Rose of the Los Angeles Press Club, adding in a text message that Singh has been a “figurative and literal punching bag for far-right extremists for years.”

In one instance, the online harassment threats got so bad that Singh was forced to bow out of a speaking appearance at the Asian American Journalism Assn.’s annual conference, Rose said.

“It shows that there is this prevailing threat toward journalists of all types, but in particular it can happen to independent journalists,” he said.

The settlement comes as a federal judge is expected to make a ruling in two lawsuits brought by press advocates against the LAPD and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for the treatment of journalists covering the recent pro-immigration protests.

Former NFL quarterback Jay Cutler pleaded guilty to a DUI charge but had three other charges, including for possession of a handgun while under the influence, dropped during a Tennessee court appearance Tuesday following his October 2024 arrest.

The 2008 Pro Bowl player was sentenced to four days in Williamson County jail, which he is set to start serving Sept. 29, according to WSMV-TV in Nashville. The Times has reached out to attorneys for Cutler and Tennessee’s 21st District but did not immediately receive responses.

As part of his plea deal, WSMV reported, Cutler agreed to forfeit his Glock pistol. In addition to the jail time, he will be on unsupervised probation for one year. He also had his Tennessee drivers license revoked and is required to pay a $350 fine and attend a DUI safety class.

Cutler was arrested Oct. 17 after Franklin Police Department officers responded to a minor collision in which it appeared that Cutler’s vehicle rear-ended another vehicle. According to the police, Cutler smelled of alcohol, had bloodshot eyes and slurred his words.

After he refused a field sobriety test, police said, Cutler was taken to a hospital and a blood sample was taken after a search warrant was obtained. Two firearms were found in his vehicle, according to the police, including a loaded pistol.

All four charges against Cutler — which also included failure to exercise due care and violating implied consent — were misdemeanors. He was released on a $5,000 bond.

Cutler was selected 11th overall by the Denver Broncos in the 2006 draft and became their starting quarterback late in the season. He was traded to the Chicago Bears before the 2009 season and led the team to the NFC championship game that year, in his only postseason appearance.

Cutler was cut by the Bears in March 2017 and played one more season with the Miami Dolphins before ending his career. He and reality TV star Kristen Cavallari were married from 2013-2022 and have three children together.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The parade of Trump terribles is a long one, starting in Washington and stretching clear across this beleaguered nation.

A bumbling Defense secretary who lacks the competence to organize a two-car military procession.

A screw-loose Health secretary who seems not to care if measles and other plagues descend on America.

A director of national intelligence who’s shown no great abundance of that quality but, rather, an eagerness to twist and bend facts like a coat hanger, serving whatever cockamamie claim the president burps up.

Because, after all, obeisance and lay-down-your-life loyalty are the main prerequisites for service in the Trump administration, along with the all-important consideration of how one comes across on television.

How else to explain the chief federal prosecutor he’s imposed on Nevada, Sigal Chattah?

Chattah, 50, devoted years to a not-particularly-noteworthy legal career, practicing domestic and international law at her Las Vegas firm and teaching political science for a time at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. In 2022, Chattah was the Republican nominee for state attorney general, losing rather handily to incumbent Democrat Aaron Ford.

But not before distinguishing herself as a notably reprehensible candidate.

Among other things, Chattah compared Ford to the leader of Hamas and said that her opponent, who happens to be Black, “should be hanging from a f— crane.” (The Israeli-born Chattah told the Las Vegas Review Journal the “smart-ass comment” was a tongue-in-cheek expression derived from her Middle East background.)

A pugnacious poster on social media — another perceived asset in Trump World — Chattah called a Black member of Congress a “hood rat,” a Black female prosecutor “ghetto” and a Black “Saturday Night Live” cast member a “monkey.”

She suggested immigrants — make that “invaders” — and college protesters should be shot and transgenderism should be treated with “meds or commitment to an in-patient facility.”

But what might have particularly endeared her to Trump is her embrace of his ego-salving Big Lie about the 2020 election being stolen from under him. Chattah even served as legal counsel to one of the fake electors who tried to overturn Joe Biden’s clear-cut victory and swipe Nevada for Trump.

It’s hardly unusual for a president to pick a member of his party to serve as U.S. attorney, replacing the choice of a previous administration. In fact, even though justice is supposed to be blind and thus, theoretically above political considerations, that’s how the selection process usually works.

But Trump has broken new and treacherous ground by installing not just partisans as federal prosecutors but lackeys — starting with Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi — who’ve shown their allegiance not to fair-minded application of the law but rather delivering on the feral impulses of their White House patron.

Trump’s pick for top prosecutor in the Los Angeles area is Bill Essayli, a former state assemblyman from Riverside County whose main qualification seemed to be his loud, performative approach to serving in Sacramento’s GOP minority.

Bondi appointed Essayli on an interim basis in early April. His appointment was limited to 120 days; normally within that time he would have been formally nominated and faced confirmation by the U.S. Senate. Knowing the latter was unlikely, the Trump administration executed an end run and named Essayli “acting U.S. attorney,” which gives him an additional 210 days in the job before he faces formal confirmation.

As it happened, the very same day that maneuvering took place, prosecutors moved to dismiss charges in a criminal case involving one of Trump’s political donors.

Coincidence?

The same sleight-of-hand — interim appointment, designation as “acting U.S. attorney” — was used to extend the tenure of Trump sycophants as chief federal prosecutors in New Jersey, New Mexico, upstate New York and, in Chattah’s case, Nevada.

(In a setback for Trump, a federal judge ruled last week that his former personal attorney, Alina Habba, was unlawfully serving as New Jersey’s top prosecutor, though the order was put on hold pending appeal.)

Chattah’s partisanship is plain as a desert squall. In a remarkable breach of protocol and ethics — not to mention the federal law forbidding employees from mixing work and politics — she kept her position as Nevada’s representative on the Republican National Committee even as she served as interim U.S. attorney.

Chattah abandoned the post only after the Nevada Independent reported on the obvious conflict of interest.

Last month, in the final days before Chattah’s interim appointment ended, more than 100 retired state and federal judges wrote Nevada’s chief federal district judge to object to her continued service. The group said Chattah’s history of “racially charged, violence-tinged, and inflammatory public statements” was disqualifying.

The Trump administration extended her tenure nonetheless.

As part of their unavailing effort, the judges quoted a 1940 speech then-U.S. Atty. Gen. Robert H. Jackson delivered, citing the immense power and responsibility that rests with a U.S. attorney.

“The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America. His discretion is tremendous,” said Jackson, who went on to serve as one of the Supreme Court’s most distinguished justices. “… The prosecutor can order arrests, present cases to the grand jury in secret session, and on the basis of his one-sided presentation of the facts, can cause the citizen to be indicted and held for trial.

“While the prosecutor at his best is one of the most beneficent forces in our society, when he acts from malice or other base motives, he is one of the worst.”

Obviously, Jackson never knew Chattah or other Trump appointees besmirching the halls of justice. But the late justice, buried at Maple Grove Cemetery in Frewsburg, N.Y., is doubtless turning somersaults in his grave.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who’s at the center of an ongoing immigration feud with the Trump administration, faces the possibility of deportation to Uganda, just a day after being released from a Tennessee jail.

Court documents Saturday showed President Trump’s administration plans to deport Abrego Garcia to Uganda after he turned down an offer to be sent to Costa Rica if he pleaded guilty to human smuggling charges.

His case has attracted attention amid Trump’s immigration crackdown when he was mistakenly deported in March. Facing a court order, the Trump administration brought him back to the U.S. in June, only to detain him on human smuggling charges, which the Maryland resident denies.

Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, Abrego Garcia’s lead attorney in his lawsuit against the Trump administration, said in a statement Saturday that the government is trying to use the immigration system to punish his client by “attempting to send him halfway across the world, to a country with documented human rights abuses and where he does not even speak the language.”

Abrego Garcia’s attorney’s court filings show the administration requested he appear at an immigration facility in Baltimore on Monday and could be deported again.

In a statement Friday at his release, Abrego Garcia said he saw his family for the first time in more than five months.

“We are steps closer to justice, but justice has not been fully served,” he added.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem denounced the decision to free Abrego Garcia, stating that the administration will not stop fighting until he’s out of the U.S.

The Trump administration casts him as an MS-13 gang member and immigrant smuggler.

Abrego Garcia and his attorneys reject those claims. They portray him as a family man and construction worker who was arbitrarily deported and vindictively charged.

As his story takes yet another turn, here’s what to know:

The Costa Rica-Uganda offer

The Costa Rica offer came late Thursday and included a requirement that he remain in jail, according to a brief filed in Tennessee, where the criminal case was brought. After Abrego Garcia left jail Friday, Immigration and Customs Enforcement told his attorneys he would be deported to Uganda and should report to immigration authorities Monday.

Later Friday, the government told Abrego Garcia he has until first thing Monday to accept a plea in exchange for deportation to Costa Rica, or else that offer will be off the table, his defense attorneys wrote.

They declined to say whether he is still considering the offer.

Filed along with the court brief was a letter from the Costa Rican government stating that Abrego Garcia would be welcomed to that country as a legal immigrant and wouldn’t face the possibility of detention.

Justice Department spokesperson Chad Gilmartin responded to the brief with a statement saying, “A federal grand jury has charged Abrego Garcia with serious federal crimes … underscoring the clear danger this defendant presents to the community. This defendant can plead guilty and accept responsibility or stand trial before a jury. Either way, we will hold Abrego Garcia accountable and protect the American people.”

The Department of Homeland Security notified his attorneys that he should report to immigration authorities on Monday in Baltimore to face deportation.

Uganda has agreed to a deal to accept certain migrants being deported from the United States.

‘Well-founded fear’ of returning to El Salvador

Abrego Garcia, 30, grew up in El Salvador and fled at 16 because a local gang extorted from and terrorized his family, court records state. He traveled to Maryland, where his brother lives as a U.S. citizen, but was not authorized to stay.

Abrego Garcia found work in construction and met his future wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura. In 2018, he moved in with her and her two children after she became pregnant with their child.

In March 2019, Abrego Garcia went to a Home Depot seeking work as a laborer when he was detained by local police, court records state. He was suspected of being in MS-13, based on tattoos and clothing.

A criminal informant told police Abrego Garcia was in MS-13, court records state, but police did not charge him and turned him over to ICE.

A U.S. immigration judge denied Abrego Garcia’s subsequent asylum claim because more than a year had passed since his arrival. But the judge granted him protection from being deported to El Salvador, determining he had a “well-founded fear” of gang persecution there, court records state.

Abrego Garcia was released and placed under federal supervision. He received a federal work permit and checked in with ICE each year, his lawyers said.

‘Audacity to fight back’

In February, the Trump administration designated MS-13 a foreign terrorist organization. In March, it deported Abrego Garcia to a prison in El Salvador, violating the U.S. immigration judge’s 2019 order.

Abrego Garcia later claimed in court documents that he was beaten and psychologically tortured while held at the Terrorism Confinement Center, known as CECOT. Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele denied the allegations.

The Trump administration described its violation of the immigration judge’s 2019 order as an administrative error. Trump and other officials reiterated claims that Abrego Garcia was in MS-13.

Vasquez Sura filed a lawsuit to bring her husband back. The Trump administration returned Abrego Garcia to the U.S. in June after a Supreme Court order. But it brought human smuggling charges against him.

The smuggling case stems from a 2022 traffic stop for speeding, during which Abrego Garcia was driving with nine passengers. Tennessee police suspected human smuggling, but allowed him to drive on and didn’t charge him.

Abrego Garcia pleaded not guilty.

His lawyers filed a motion to dismiss the case based on “vindictive and selective prosecution.”

Deportation fears realized

U.S. Magistrate Barbara Holmes in Nashville ruled in June that Abrego Garcia has a right to be released from jail while he awaits trial.

But Abrego Garcia remained in a Tennessee jail at his attorneys’ request for about 11 weeks over fears that ICE would immediately try to deport him.

Thomas Giles, an assistant director for ICE, testified in July that Abrego Garcia would be detained as soon as he’s freed.

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

Judge provides some protections

In response to concerns Abrego Garcia would be deported without due process, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis prohibited ICE from immediately detaining him upon release in Tennessee.

Xinis, overseeing the lawsuit in Maryland, ordered restrictions on ICE in late July. She required any removal proceedings begin in Baltimore.

Xinis also ordered that ICE provide three business days’ notice if it intends to initiate removal proceedings.

The Trump administration has “done little to assure the Court that, absent intervention, Abrego Garcia’s due process rights will be protected,” Xinis wrote.

Electronic monitoring and home detention

Soon after Xinis’ order, Abrego Garcia’s attorneys asked the federal judge in Tennessee to release him.

Holmes, the U.S. magistrate in Nashville, released him Friday, requiring Abrego Garcia to stay with his brother in Maryland and be subjected to electronic monitoring and home detention.

Finley and Catalini write for the Associated Press. AP writer Travis Loller in Nashville contributed to this report.

NASHVILLE — U.S. immigration officials said they intend to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Uganda, after he declined an offer to be deported to Costa Rica in exchange for remaining in jail and pleading guilty to human smuggling charges, according to a Saturday court filing.

The Costa Rica offer came late Thursday, after it was clear that the Salvadoran national would probably be released from a Tennessee jail the next day. Abrego Garcia declined to extend his stay in jail and was released Friday to await trial in Maryland with his family. Later that day, the Department of Homeland Security notified his attorneys that he would be deported to Uganda and should report to immigration authorities Monday.

Abrego Garcia’s case became a high-profile story in President Trump’s immigration crackdown after he was mistakenly deported to El Salvador in March. Facing a court order, the Trump administration brought him back to the U.S. in June, only to detain him on human smuggling charges.

He has pleaded not guilty and has asked the judge to dismiss the case, claiming that it is an attempt to punish him for challenging his deportation to El Salvador. The Saturday filing came as a supplement to that motion to dismiss, stating that the threat to deport him to Uganda is more proof that the prosecution is vindictive.

“The government immediately responded to Mr. Abrego’s release with outrage,” the filing reads. “Despite having requested and received assurances from the government of Costa Rica that Mr. Abrego would be accepted there, within minutes of his release from pretrial custody, an ICE representative informed Mr. Abrego’s counsel that the government intended to deport Mr. Abrego to Uganda and ordered him to report to ICE’s Baltimore Field Office Monday morning.”

Although Abrego Garcia was deemed eligible for pretrial release, he had remained in jail at the request of his attorneys, who feared the Republican administration could try to immediately deport him again if he were freed. Those fears were somewhat allayed by a recent ruling in a separate case in Maryland, which requires immigration officials to allow Abrego Garcia time to mount a defense.

Loller writes for the Associated Press.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Kilmar Abrego Garcia was released from jail in Tennessee on Friday so he can rejoin his family in Maryland while awaiting trial on human smuggling charges.

The Salvadoran national’s case became a flashpoint in President Trump’s immigration agenda after he was mistakenly deported in March. Facing a court order, the Trump administration brought him back to the U.S. in June, only to detain him on criminal charges.

Although Abrego Garcia was deemed eligible for pretrial release, he had remained in jail at the request of his attorneys, who feared the Republican administration could try to immediately deport him again if he were freed. Those fears were somewhat allayed by a recent ruling in a separate case, which requires immigration officials to allow Abrego Garcia time to mount a challenge to any deportation order.

On Friday, after two months, Abrego Garcia walked out of the Putnam County jail wearing a short-sleeved white button-down shirt and black pants and accompanied by defense attorney Rascoe Dean and two other men. They did not speak to reporters but got into a white SUV and sped off.

The release order from the court requires Abrego Garcia to travel directly to Maryland, where he will be in home detention with his brother designated as his third-party custodian. He is required to submit to electronic monitoring and can only leave the home for work, religious services and other approved activities.

An attorney for Abrego Garcia in his immigration case in Maryland, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, said in a statement Friday his client had been “reunited with his loving family” for the first time since he was wrongfully deported to a notorious El Salvador prison in March.

“While his release brings some relief, we all know that he is far from safe,” Sandoval-Moshenberg said. “ICE detention or deportation to an unknown third country still threaten to tear his family apart. A measure of justice has been done, but the government must stop pursuing actions that would once again separate this family.”

Earlier this week, Abrego Garcia’s criminal attorneys filed a motion asking the judge to dismiss the criminal case, claiming he is being prosecuted to punish him for challenging his removal to El Salvador.

Abrego Garcia has pleaded not guilty to the smuggling charges, which stem from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee for speeding. Body camera footage from a Tennessee Highway Patrol officer shows a calm exchange with Abrego Garcia. There were nine passengers in the car, and the officers discussed among themselves their suspicions of smuggling. However, Abrego Garcia was allowed to continue driving with only a warning.

A Department of Homeland Security agent testified he did not begin investigating the traffic stop until this April, when the government was facing mounting pressure to return Abrego Garcia to the U.S.

Abrego Garcia has an American wife and children and has lived in Maryland for years, but he immigrated to the U.S. illegally. In 2019, an immigration judge denied his application for asylum but granted him protection from being deported back to El Salvador, where he faces a “well-founded fear” of violence, according to court filings. He was required to check in yearly with Immigration and Customs Enforcement while Homeland Security issued him a work permit.

Although Abrego Garcia can’t be deported to El Salvador without violating the judge’s order, Homeland Security officials have said they plan to deport him to an unnamed third country.

Loller and Hall write for the Associated Press.

MIAMI — A federal judge has put a stop to further expansion of the immigration detention center built in the Florida Everglades and dubbed “Alligator Alcatraz, ordering that its operations wind down within two months.

U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams in Miami wrote in her 82-page order late Thursday that Florida officials never sufficiently explained why an immigration detention center needed to be located in the middle of sensitive wetlands cherished by environmentalists and outdoors people.

She also said that state and federal authorities never undertook an environmental review as required by federal law before Florida officials hastily built the detention camp that they championed as a model for President Trump’s immigration policies. That failure adversely affected the “recreational, conservational, and aesthetic interests” of the environmental groups and Miccosukee Tribe, which brought the lawsuit, she said.

Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis on Friday reacted to the ruling, saying he would not be deterred by “an activist judge.”

“We knew this would be something that would likely happen,” DeSantis said at a news conference in Panama City. “We will respond accordingly. You either have a country or you don’t.”

Here’s what to know about the situation and what might come next:

What did the judge say?

Williams said she expected the population at the facility to drop within 60 days by transferring detainees to other facilities. Once that happens, fencing, lighting, gas, waste, generators and other equipment should be removed from the site. No additional detainees can be sent to the facility, and noadditional lighting, fencing, paving, buildings or tents can be added to the camp. The only repairs that can be made to the existing facility are for safety purposes. However, the judge allowed for the existing dormitories and housing to stay in place as long as they are maintained to prevent deterioration or damage.

Here’s where detainees might end up

During court hearings, lawyers said at one point there were fewer than 1,000 detainees at the facility, which state officials had planned to hold up to 3,000 people. Although the detainees could be sent to other facilities out of state, Florida has other immigration detention centers including the Krome North Processing Center in Miami, the Broward Transitional Center in Pompano Beach and the Baker County Detention Center managed by the local sheriff’s office. Earlier this month, DeSantis announced plans for a second state-initiated immigration detention facility dubbed “Deportation Depot” at a state prison about 43 miles (69 kilometers) west of downtown Jacksonville. State officials say it is expected to hold 1,300 immigration detention beds, though that capacity could be expanded to 2,000 beds.

How does this decision impact the other “Alligator Alcatraz” lawsuit?

Civil rights lawyers had filed a second lawsuit over practices at “Alligator Alcatraz,” claiming that detainees weren’t able to meet with their attorneys privately and were denied access to immigration courts. Another federal judge in Miami dismissed part of the lawsuit earlier this week after the Trump administration designated the Krome North Processing Center as the court for their cases to be heard. The judge moved the remaining counts of the case from Florida’s southern district to the middle district. Eunice Cho, the lead attorney for the detainees, said Friday that the decision in the environmental lawsuit won’t have an impact on the civil rights case since there could be detainees at the facility for the next two months.

“Our case addresses the lack of access to counsel for people detained at Alligator Alcatraz, and there are still people detained there,” Cho said.

Status of the hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts

No one has said publicly what will happen to the hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts involved in the facility. DeSantis’ administration in July signed contracts with private vendors to pay at least $245 million to set up and run the center, according to a public database. That amount — to be fronted by Florida taxpayers — was in line with the $450 million a year officials have estimated the facility was going to cost. The governor’s office and the Florida Division of Emergency Management on Friday didn’t respond to questions about whether Florida taxpayers would still be on the hook for the contracts if the facility is shuttered.

Is this a final decision?

No. This case will continue to be litigated. The state of Florida filed a notice of appeal Thursday night, shortly after the ruling was issued. As its name suggests, a preliminary injunction is only an initial action taken by a judge to prevent harm while a lawsuit makes its way through the court process and when it appears that one side has a good chance of succeeding based on the merits of the case.

Schneider and Anderson write for the Associated Press.

WILLIAMSPORT, Pa. — A federal judge ruled Thursday that President Trump’s former lawyer, Alina Habba, has been unlawfully serving as the the top federal prosecutor in New Jersey.

The court, saying the administration used “a novel series of legal and personnel moves,” held that Habba’s term as the interim U.S. attorney ended in July, and the Trump administration’s maneuvers to keep her in the role without getting confirmation from the U.S. Senate didn’t follow procedures required by federal law.

“Faced with the question of whether Ms. Habba is lawfully performing the functions and duties of the office of the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, I conclude that she is not,” Chief U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann wrote.

The opinion says that Habba’s actions since July “may be declared void.”

Brann, a President Obama appointee, said he’s putting his order on hold pending an appeal. It wasn’t immediately clear if that meant Habba would remain in charge of the U.S. attorney’s office.

A message seeking comment was sent to Habba’s office Thursday. The Justice Department said it intends to appeal the ruling.

Brann’s decision comes in response to a filing on behalf of New Jersey defendants challenging Habba’s tenure and the charges she was prosecuting against them. They sought to block the charges against them, arguing that Habba didn’t have the authority to prosecute the case after her 120-day term as interim U.S. attorney expired in July.

The defendants’ motion to block Habba, a onetime White House advisor to President Trump and his former personal defense attorney, is another high-profile chapter in her short tenure.

She made headlines when Trump named her U.S. attorney for New Jersey in March. She said the state could “turn red,” a rare, overt political expression from a prosecutor, and said she planned to investigate the state’s Democratic governor and attorney general.

She then brought a trespassing charge, which was eventually dropped, against Newark Mayor Ras Baraka stemming from his visit to a federal immigration detention center. Habba later charged Democratic Rep. LaMonica McIver with assault stemming from the same incident, a rare federal criminal case against a sitting member of Congress other than for corruption. She denies the charges and has pleaded not guilty.

Volatility over her tenure unfolded in late July when the four-month temporary appointment was coming to a close and it became clear that she would not get support from home state Sens. Cory Booker and Andy Kim, both Democrats, effectively torpedoing her chances of Senate approval.

The president withdrew her nomination. Around the same time, federal judges in New Jersey exercised their power under the law to replace Habba with a career prosecutor when Habba’s temporary appointment lapsed, but Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi fired that prosecutor and renamed Habba as acting U.S. attorney.

In his opinion, Brann questioned the legal moves the administration conducted to keep Habba in place.

“Taken to the extreme, the President could use this method to staff the United States Attorney’s office with individuals of his personal choice for an entire term without seeking the Senate’s advice and consent,” he wrote.

The Justice Department has said in filings that the judges acted prematurely and that the executive has the authority to appoint his preferred candidate to enforce federal laws in the state.

Trump had formally nominated Habba as his pick for U.S. attorney on July 1, but Booker and Kim’s opposition meant that under long-standing Senate practice known as senatorial courtesy, the nomination would stall out.

A handful of other Trump picks for U.S. attorney are facing a similar circumstance.

Catalini writes for the Associated Press.

A federal judge has ruled that lawyer Alina Habba was unlawfully appointed to the role of acting United States attorney for the District of New Jersey

Thursday’s decision from District Judge Matthew Brann was a rebuke to the administration of President Donald Trump, who has sought to keep Habba, his former personal lawyer, in the role despite a previous court decision replacing her.

“Faced with the question of whether Ms Habba is lawfully performing the functions and duties of the office of the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, I conclude that she is not,” Brann wrote.

Brann accused the Trump administration of using “a novel series of legal and personnel moves” to keep Habba in her role as US attorney.

But, given the fact that Habba has not been officially confirmed to the position by the US Senate, Brann decided that her actions since July 1 “may be declared void”.

Brann, however, put his decision on hold pending a likely appeal from the Trump administration.

The challenge against Habba’s continued role as US attorney came from defendants in cases she was pursuing.

Two, Julien Giraud Jr and Julien Giraud III, were charged with drug and firearm-related offences. A third, Cesar Humberto Pina, was accused of laundering drug proceeds and participating in a “multi-million-dollar Ponzi-like investment fraud scheme”.

Lawyers for Pina released a statement praising the judge’s decision later on Thursday and calling for the Trump administration to follow federal procedure for appointing US attorneys.

“Prosecutors wield enormous power, and with that comes the responsibility to ensure they are qualified and properly appointed,” lawyers Abbe David Lowell and Gerald Krovatin wrote in the statement.

“We appreciate the thoroughness of the court’s opinion, and its decision underscores that this Administration cannot circumvent the congressionally mandated process for confirming US Attorney appointments.”

Trump clashes with judicial branch

Thursday’s court decision is likely to continue the power clash between President Trump and the judiciary, whom he has accused of being politically biased against him and his allies.

While Habba awaits a confirmation hearing before the US Senate, she has served in the US attorney position on an interim basis.

But such interim appointments are capped at a period of 120 days. Continuing beyond that time span requires approval from a panel of judges in the district.

The panel, however, declined Habba’s bid to stay in the role on July 22. It named her second-in-command, career prosecutor Desiree Grace, to replace her as US attorney.

But the Trump administration swiftly moved to reject the judges’ decision. Attorney General Pam Bondi fired Grace and said Habba would continue in her role regardless of the July 22 court order.

“This Department of Justice does not tolerate rogue judges,” Bondi wrote on social media.

The Justice Department, under Trump, has sought to retain term-capped interim US attorneys elsewhere as well.

But Habba’s handling of her position has drawn particular scrutiny, as has her close relationship with the president.

Habba was an early appointment to Trump’s second term. In December, just weeks after winning the 2024 presidential election, Trump revealed he would bring her into the White House as a counsellor for his administration.

Then, on March 24, he announced she would be his pick for US attorney for the New Jersey district.

Previously, Habba has represented Trump as a personal lawyer in several civil cases.

While she won one defamation suit brought against Trump by former reality TV contestant Summer Zervos, she lost two high-profile cases: a defamation suit brought by writer E Jean Carroll and a civil fraud case led by New York Attorney General Letitia James. Trump is currently appealing both of those decisions.

Questions surrounding Habba’s leadership

Since taking on the role of interim US attorney, Habba told a podcaster that she hoped to help “turn New Jersey red” – an indication she may use her traditionally nonpartisan position for partisan aims.

She has also led probes and prosecutions that critics denounced as politically motivated. In one instance, she opened an investigation into New Jersey’s Democratic Governor Phil Murphy over his immigration policies.

In another, she charged Newark Mayor Ras Baraka for trespassing after he attempted to join several Congress members on a tour of the Delaney Hall immigration detention facility.

Those charges were later dropped, and a member of Habba’s office was rebuked in court. “An arrest, particularly of a public figure, is not a preliminary investigative tool,” Judge Andre Espinosa told the prosecutor.

Baraka has since filed a civil complaint accusing Habba of “subjecting him to false arrest and malicious prosecution”.

Still, Habba has continued to pursue criminal charges against US Representative LaMonica McIver for assault during the same incident at Delaney Hall. McIver has called the charge a “blatant political attack”.

NEW YORK — A former top aide to New York City Mayor Eric Adams was hit Thursday with a second wave of bribery charges in a swirling corruption investigation of City Hall, with prosecutors alleging she exchanged political favors for cash, home renovations and a speaking role on a TV show.

Ingrid Lewis-Martin, Adams’ former chief of staff and closest confidant, her son Glenn D. Martin, former state Sen. Jesse Hamilton and two of Adams’ political donors, siblings Tony and Gina Argento, are among those facing new charges.

Lewis-Martin and the other defendants were expected to appear in court on Thursday.

Adams himself has not been charged, but the case will thrust the corruption allegations that have dogged the Democrat back into focus as he seeks to regain voters’ trust ahead of a contested election in November. A spokesperson for Adams did not immediately return a request for comment.

On Thursday, Lewis-Martin was charged with four additional counts of conspiracy and bribe receiving in a series of indictments Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg described as “classic bribery conspiracies that had a deep and wide-ranging impact on city government.”

“As alleged, Lewis-Martin consistently overrode the expertise of public servants so she could line her own pockets. While she allegedly received more than $75,000 in bribes and an appearance on a TV show, every other New Yorker lost out,” Bragg said in a statement.

Lewis-Martin’s attorney, Arthur Aidala, vowed to fight the charges, saying, “This is not justice — it is a distortion of the truth and a troubling example of politically motivated ‘lawfare.’”

She resigned last December ahead of her indictment in a separate case in which she and her son are accused of taking bribes in exchange for speedy approval of construction projects. That case is still pending. She has continued to volunteer for the Adams campaign while awaiting trial.

The fresh round of indictments brought against Adams’ close allies could add to political headwinds already facing the mayor, whose own indictment on federal bribery charges was abandoned by President Trump’s administration earlier this year.

The corruption scandals have opened the door to challengers in the upcoming election, including the Democratic primary winner, Zohran Mamdani, and former Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

Adams is running as an independent, claiming the case brought against him — in which he was accused of accepting bribes and travel perks from foreign interests — had prevented him from campaigning in the Democratic primary. Those charges were dismissed in April following an extraordinary intervention by U.S. Justice Department officials, who said the case was impeding Adams from assisting in Trump’s immigration crackdown.

In the months since, the status of other federal probes linked to Adams’ key allies, including his former police commissioner and several deputy mayors, has remained uncertain. The new charges were brought by Bragg, who prosecuted Trump last year and who is also running for reelection.

Both federal and state investigators seized Lewis-Martin’s phone at Kennedy Airport last September as she returned from a trip to Japan with several colleagues.

Hours later, Lewis-Martin appeared on her attorney’s radio show, denying that she had “done anything illegal to the magnitude or scale that requires the federal government and the DA’s office to investigate us.”

Both she and her son pleaded not guilty to charges of accepting improper gifts worth more than $100,000 in exchange for speeding construction approvals for two real estate investors.

Earlier this week, a spokesperson for Adams’ campaign, Todd Shapiro, said the mayor would stand with Lewis-Martin.

“Ingrid has dedicated her life to the people of New York City,” Shapiro said, “and she deserves the presumption of innocence and the support of those who know her best.”

Last week, federal prosecutors wrapped up their two remaining Adams-related cases.

Mohamed Bahi, who served as the mayor’s chief liaison to the Muslim community, pleaded guilty to soliciting straw donations to Adams’ campaign, and Brooklyn construction magnate Erden Arkan was sentenced to a year of probation for his involvement in a straw donor scheme.

Offenhartz, Sisak and Izaguirre write for the Associated Press.

A former Miami Heat security officer has pleaded guilty in federal court to a charge in connection to stealing team memorabilia worth millions of dollars and selling the items to online brokers.

Retired Miami police officer Marcos Tomas Perez appeared Tuesday at U.S. Superior Court for the Southern District of Florida and issued a guilty plea to transporting and transferring stolen goods in interstate commerce, after pleading not guilty to the felony count at an initial hearing earlier this month.

Perez’s attorney, Robert Buschel, told NBC6 in Florida after Tuesday’s hearing that Perez is “depressed, naturally, but he accepts responsibility for his behavior and we’re gonna work through this issue in his life.”

Perez, 62, faces up to 10 years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000. He is scheduled to be sentenced on Oct. 31.

“I hope that the judge will consider all factors in his life and his history as a good person,” Buschel said. “He was an exemplary police officer in the city of Miami, he’s been retired for close to 10 years. This was an unfortunate set of decisions that he made and he’s going to accept responsibility for that.”

Buschel declined to comment any further when reached by The Times via email Wednesday.

According to a news release by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida and the Miami field office of the FBI, Perez has admitted to stealing hundreds of game-worn jerseys and other memorabilia worth millions of dollars belonging to the Heat and selling them to online brokers.

One such item was a jersey that LeBron James wore in Game 7 of the 2013 NBA Finals, during which James and the Heat defeated the San Antonio Spurs 95-88 to win their second consecutive championship. After Perez allegedly sold the jersey for around $100,000, it was sold in an online auction for $3.7 million in 2023.

According to court documents, other stolen items included jerseys signed by former Heat stars Dwyane Wade, Jimmy Butler, Chris Bosh, Alonzo Mourning and Shaquille O’Neal, as well as team jackets, game-worn sneakers and more.

MIAMI — A federal judge in Miami dismissed part of a lawsuit that claimed detainees were denied access to the legal system at the immigration detention center in the Florida Everglades known as “Alligator Alcatraz” and moved the remaining counts of the case to another court.

Claims that the detainees were denied hearings in immigration court were rendered moot when the Trump administration last weekend designated the Krome North Processing Center near Miami as a site for their cases to be heard, U.S. District Judge Rodolfo Ruiz said in a 47-page ruling Monday night dismissing a 5th Amendment count.

The judge granted the state defendants a change of venue motion to the Middle District of Florida, where the remaining claims of 1st Amendment violations will be addressed. Those include allegations of delays in scheduling meetings between detainees and their attorneys and an inability for the detainees to talk privately with their attorneys by phone or videoconference at the facility whose official name is the South Detention Facility.

ACLU lawyer Eunice Cho, the lead attorney for the detainees, said the federal government reversed course only last weekend and allowed the detainees to petition an immigration court because of the lawsuit.

“It should not take a lawsuit to force the government to abide by the law and the Constitution,” Cho said. “We look forward to continuing the fight.”

The judge heard arguments from both sides in a hearing earlier Monday in Miami. Civil rights attorneys were seeking a preliminary injunction to ensure detainees at the facility had access to their lawyers and could get a hearing.

Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis’ administration raced to build the facility on an isolated airstrip surrounded by swampland two months ago in order to aid President Trump’s efforts to deport people who are in the U.S. illegally. The governor has said the location in the rugged and remote Everglades was meant as a deterrent against escape, much like the island prison in California that Republicans named it after. The detention center has an estimated annual cost of $450 million.

The state and federal government had argued that even though the isolated airstrip where the facility is located is owned by Miami-Dade County, Florida’s Southern District was the wrong venue since the detention center is located in neighboring Collier County, which is in the state’s Middle District.

Judge Ruiz had hinted during a hearing last week that he had some concerns over which jurisdiction was appropriate. Attorneys for the detainees had argued that Ruiz’s court was appropriate since the detainees were under the oversight of federal officials in the Miami regional office. Any transfer to another venue would cause a delay in a court decision.

Ruiz noted the facts in the case changed Saturday when the Trump administration designated the Krome facility as the immigration court with jurisdiction over all detainees at the detention center.

The judge wrote that the case has “a tortured procedural history” since it was filed July 16, weeks after the first group of detainees arrived at the facility.

“Nearly every aspect of the Plaintiffs’ civil action — their causes of action, their facts in support, their theories of venue, their arguments on the merits and their requests for relief — have changed with each filing,” the judge wrote.

The state and federal government defendants made an identical argument last week about jurisdiction for a second lawsuit in which environmental groups and the Miccosukee Tribe sued to stop further construction and operations at the Everglades detention center until it’s in compliance with federal environmental laws.

U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams in Miami on Aug. 7 ordered a 14-day halt to additional construction at the site while witnesses testified at a hearing that wrapped up last week. She has said she plans to issue a ruling before the order expires later this week. She had yet to rule on the venue question.

Detainees at the facility have said worms turn up in the food, toilets don’t flush, flooding floors with fecal waste, and mosquitoes and other insects are everywhere.

Civil rights attorneys also said officers were going cell to cell to pressure detainees into signing voluntary removal orders before they’re allowed to consult their attorneys, and some detainees had been deported even though they didn’t have final removal orders. Along with the spread of a respiratory infection and rainwater flooding in tents, the circumstances had fueled a feeling of desperation among detainees, the attorneys wrote in a court filing.

Fischer, Schneider and Frisaro write for the Associated Press. Frisaro reported from Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and Schneider reported from Orlando, Fla.

McALLEN, Texas — A federal judge ruled Friday to deny the Trump administration’s request to end a policy in place for nearly three decades that is meant to protect immigrant children in federal custody.

U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee in Los Angeles issued her ruling a week after holding a hearing with the federal government and legal advocates representing immigrant children in custody.

Gee called last week’s hearing “deja vu” after reminding the court of the federal government’s attempt to terminate the Flores settlement agreement in 2019 under the first Trump administration. She repeated the sentiment in Friday’s order.

“There is nothing new under the sun regarding the facts or the law. The Court therefore could deny Defendants’ motion on that basis alone,” Gee wrote, referring to the government’s appeal to a law it argued kept the court from enforcing the agreement.

In the most recent attempt, the government argued it had made substantial changes since the agreement was formalized in 1997, creating standards and policies governing the custody of immigrant children that conform to legislation and the agreement.

Gee acknowledged that the government made some improved conditions of confinement, but wrote, “These improvements are direct evidence that the FSA is serving its intended purpose, but to suggest that the agreement should be abandoned because some progress has been made is nonsensical.”

Attorneys representing the federal government told the court the agreement gets in the way of their efforts to expand detention space for families, even though President Trump’s tax and spending bill provided billions to build new immigration facilities.

Tiberius Davis, one of the government attorneys, said the bill gives the government authority to hold families in detention indefinitely. “But currently under the Flores settlement agreement, that’s essentially void,” he said last week.

The Flores agreement, named for a teenage plaintiff, was the result of more than a decade of litigation between attorneys representing the rights of migrant children and the U.S. government over widespread allegations of mistreatment in the 1980s.

The agreement set standards for how licensed shelters must provide food, water, adult supervision, emergency medical services, toilets, sinks, temperature control and ventilation. It also limited how long U.S. Customs and Border Protection could detain child immigrants to 72 hours. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services then takes custody of the children.

The Biden administration successfully pushed to partially end the agreement last year. Gee ruled that special court supervision may end when Health and Human Services takes custody, but she carved out exceptions for certain types of facilities for children with more acute needs.

In arguing against the Trump administration’s effort to completely end the agreement, advocates said the government was holding children beyond the time limits. In May, CBP held 46 children for more than a week, including six children held for over two weeks and four children held for 19 days, according to data revealed in a court filing. In March and April, CPB reported that it had 213 children in custody for more than 72 hours. That included 14 children, including toddlers, who were held for over 20 days in April.

The federal government is looking to expand its immigration detention space, including by building more centers like one in Florida dubbed “Alligator Alcatraz,” where a lawsuit alleges detainees’ constitutional rights are being violated.

Gee still has not ruled on the request by legal advocates for the immigrant children to expand independent monitoring of the treatment of children held in U.S. Customs and Border Protection facilities. Currently, the agreement allows for third-party inspections at facilities in the El Paso and Rio Grande Valley regions, but plaintiffs submitted evidence showing long detention times at border facilities that violate the agreement’s terms.

Gonzalez writes for the Associated Press.