authority

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court term that ended Friday will not be remembered for blockbuster rulings like those recent years that struck down the right to abortion and college affirmative action.

The justices scaled back their docket this year and spent much of their energy focused on deciding fast-track appeals from President Trump. His administration’s lawyers complained too many judges were standing in the way of Trump’s agenda.

On Friday, the court’s conservatives agreed to rein in district judges, a procedural victory for Trump.

What’s been missing so far, however, is a clear ruling on whether the president has abided by the law or overstepped his authority under the U.S. Constitution.

On the final two days of the term, the court’s conservative majority provided big wins for Republican-leaning states, religious parents and Trump.

The justices gave states more authority to prohibit medical treatments for transgender teens, to deny Medicaid funds to Planned Parenthood clinics and to enforce age-verification laws for online porn sites.

Each came with the familiar 6-3 split, with the Republican appointees siding with the GOP-led states, while the Democratic appointees dissented.

These rulings, while significant, were something short of nationwide landmark decisions — celebrated victories for the Republican half of the nation but having no direct or immediate effect on Democratic-led states.

California lawmakers are not likely to pass measures to restrict gender-affirming care or to prohibit women on Medicaid from obtaining birth control, pregnancy testing or medical screenings at a Planned Parenthood clinic.

The new decisions echoed the Dobbs ruling three years ago that struck down Roe vs. Wade and the constitutional right to abortion.

As the conservative justices noted, the decision in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health did not outlaw abortion nationwide. However, it did allow conservative states to do so. Since then, 17 Republican-led states in the South and Midwest have adopted new laws to prohibit most or all abortions.

On this front, the court’s decisions reflect a “federalism,” or states-rights style of conservatism, that was dominant in decades past under President Reagan and two of the court’s conservative leaders, Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

Both were Arizona Republicans (and in O’Connor’s case, a former state legislator) who came to the court with that view that Washington holds too much power and wields too much control over states and local governments.

With the nation sharply divided along partisan lines, today’s conservative court could be praised or defended for freeing states to make different choices on the “culture wars.”

The other big winner so far this year has been Trump and his broad claims of executive power.

Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has asserted he has total authority to run federal agencies, cut their spending and fire most of their employees, all without the approval of Congress, which created and funded the agencies.

He has also claimed the authority to impose tariffs of any amount on any country and also change his mind a few days later.

He has dispatched National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles against the wishes of the governor and the mayor.

He has asserted he can punish universities and law firms.

He has claimed he can revise by executive order the 14th Amendment and its birthright citizenship clause.

So far, the Supreme Court has not ruled squarely on Trump’s broad assertions of power. But the justices have granted a series of emergency appeals from Trump’s lawyers and set aside lower court orders that blocked his initiatives from taking effect.

The theme has been that judges are out of line, not the president.

Friday’s ruling limiting nationwide injunctions set out that view in a 26-page opinion. The conservatives agreed that some judges have overstepped their authority by ruling broadly based on a single lawsuit.

The justices have yet to rule on whether the president has overstepped his power.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett summed up the dispute in a revealing comment responding to a dissent from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. “Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,” she wrote.

Missing from all this is the earlier strain of conservatism that opposed concentrated power in Washington — and in this instance, in one person.

Last year offered a hint of what was to come. A year ago, the court ended its term by declaring the president is immune from being prosecuted for his official acts while in the White House.

That decision, in Trump vs. United States, shielded the former and soon-to-be president from the criminal law.

The Constitution does not mention any such immunity for ex-presidents charged with crimes, but Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said a shield of immunity was necessary to “enable the the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution.”

Since returning to the White House, Trump has not been accused of exercising “undue caution.”

Instead, he appears to have viewed the court’s opinion as confirming his unchecked power as the nation’s chief executive. Trump advisors say that because the president was elected, he has a mandate and the authority to put his priorities and policies into effect.

But the Supreme Court’s conservatives did not take that view when President Biden took office promising to take action on climate change and to reduce the burden of student loan debt.

In both areas, the Roberts court ruled that the Biden administration had exceeded its authority under the laws passed by Congress.

Away from Washington, the most significant decision from this term may be Friday’s ruling empowering parents.

The six justices on the right ruled parents have a right to remove their children from certain public school classes that offend their religious beliefs. They objected to new storybooks and lessons for young children with LGBTQ+ themes.

In recent years, the court, led by Roberts, has championed the “free exercise” of religion that is protected by the 1st Amendment. In a series of decisions, the court has exempted Catholic schools and charities from laws or regulations on, for example, providing contraceptives to employees.

Friday’s ruling in a Maryland case extended that religious liberty right into the schools and ruled for Muslim and Catholic parents who objected to new LGBTQ+-themed storybooks.

At first, the school board said parents could have their young children “opt out” of those classes. But when too many parents took the offer, the school board rescinded it.

The clash between progressive educators and conservative parents reached the court when the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty appealed on behalf of the parents.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said the parents believed the books and stories offended their religious beliefs, and he ordered school authorities to “to notify them in advance whenever one of the books in question is to be used … and allow them to have their children excused from that instruction.”

This decision may have a broader impact than any from this term because it empowers parents nationwide. But it too has limits. It does not require the schools to change their curriculum and their lessons or remove any books from the shelves.

The conservatives fell one vote short in a case that could have brought about a far-reaching change in American schools. Split 4 to 4, the justices could not rule to uphold the nation’s first publicly funded, church-run charter school.

In the past, Roberts had voted to allow students to use state tuition grants in religious schools, but he appeared uncertain about using tax money to operate a church-run school.

But that question is almost certain to return to the court. Barrett stepped aside from the Oklahoma case heard in April because friends and former colleagues at the Notre Dame Law School had filed the appeal. But in a future case, she could participate and cast a deciding vote.

ST. PAUL, Minn. — Former Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman laid in state in the Minnesota Capitol rotunda on Friday while the man charged with killing her and her husband, and wounding a state senator and his wife, made a brief court appearance in a suicide prevention suit.

Hortman, a Democrat, is the first woman and one of fewer than 20 Minnesotans accorded the honor. She laid in state with her husband, Mark, and their golden retriever, Gilbert. Her husband was also killed in the June 14 attack, and Gilbert was seriously wounded and had to be euthanized. It was the first time a couple has laid in state at the Capitol, and the first time for a dog.

The Hortmans’ caskets and the dog’s urn were arranged in the center of the rotunda, under the Capitol dome, with law enforcement officers keeping watch on either side.

The Capitol was open for the public to pay their respects from noon to 5 p.m. Friday. House TV was livestreaming the viewing. A private funeral is set for 10:30 a.m. Saturday. The service will be livestreamed on the Department of Public Safety’s YouTube channel.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris will fly to Minnesota for the funeral but won’t have a speaking role, according to her personal office. Harris expressed her condolences this past week to Hortman’s adult children, and spoke with Gov. Tim Walz, her 2024 running mate, who extended an invitation on behalf of the Hortman family, her office said.

His hearing takes a twist

The man accused of killing the Hortmans and wounding another Democratic lawmaker and his wife made a short court appearance Friday to face charges for what the chief federal prosecutor for Minnesota has called “a political assassination.” Vance Boelter, 57, of Green Isle, surrendered near his home the night of June 15 after what authorities have called the largest search in Minnesota history.

An unshaven Boelter was brought in wearing just a green padded suicide prevention suit and orange slippers. Federal defender Manny Atwal asked Magistrate Judge Douglas Micko to continue the hearing until next Thursday. She said Boelter has been sleep deprived while on suicide watch in the Sherburne County Jail, and that it has been difficult to communicate with him as a result.

“Your honor, I haven’t really slept in about 12 to 14 days,” Boelter told the judge. And he denied being suicidal. “I’ve never been suicidal and I am not suicidal now.”

Atwal told the court that Boelter had been in what’s known as a “Gumby suit,” without undergarments, ever since his transfer to the jail after his first court appearance on June 16. She said the lights are on in his area 24 hours a day, doors slam frequently, the inmate in the next cell spreads feces on the walls, and the smell drifts to Boelter’s cell.

The attorney said transferring him to segregation instead, and giving him a normal jail uniform, would let him get some sleep, restore some dignity, and let him communicate better. The judge agreed.

Prosecutors did not object to the delay and said they also had concerns about the jail conditions.

The acting U.S. attorney for Minnesota, Joseph Thompson, told reporters afterward that he did not think Boelter had attempted to kill himself.

The case continues

Boelter did not enter a plea. Prosecutors need to secure a grand jury indictment first, before his arraignment, which is when a plea is normally entered.

According to the federal complaint, police video shows Boelter outside the Hortmans’ home and captures the sound of gunfire. And it says security video shows Boelter approaching the front doors of two other lawmakers’ homes dressed as a police officer.

His lawyers have declined to comment on the charges, which could carry the federal death penalty. Thompson said last week that no decision has been made. Minnesota abolished its death penalty in 1911. The Death Penalty Information Center says a federal death penalty case hasn’t been prosecuted in Minnesota in the modern era, as best as it can tell.

Boelter also faces separate murder and attempted murder charges in state court that could carry life without parole, assuming that county prosecutors get their own indictment for first-degree murder. But federal authorities intend to use their power to try Boelter first.

Other victims and alleged targets

Authorities say Boelter shot and wounded Democratic state Sen. John Hoffman, and his wife, Yvette, at their home in Champlin before shooting and killing the Hortmans in their home in the northern Minneapolis suburb of Brooklyn Park, a few miles away.

Federal prosecutors allege Boelter also stopped at the homes of two other Democratic lawmakers. Prosecutors also say he listed dozens of other Democrats as potential targets, including officials in other states. Friends described Boelter as an evangelical Christian with politically conservative views. But prosecutors have declined so far to speculate on a motive.

Boelter’s wife speaks out

Boelter’s wife, Jenny, issued a statement through her own lawyers Thursday saying she and her children are “absolutely shocked, heartbroken and completely blindsided,” and expressing sympathy for the Hortman and Hoffman families. She is not in custody and has not been charged.

“This violence does not align at all with our beliefs as a family,” her statement said. “It is a betrayal of everything we hold true as tenets of our Christian faith. We are appalled and horrified by what occurred and our hearts are incredibly heavy for the victims of this unfathomable tragedy.”

An FBI agent’s affidavit described the Boelters as “preppers,” people who prepare for major or catastrophic incidents. Investigators seized 48 guns from his home, according to search warrant documents.

While the FBI agent’s affidavit said law enforcement stopped Boelter’s wife as she traveled with her four children north of the Twin Cities in Onamia on the day of the shootings, she said in her statement that she was not pulled over. She said that after she got a call from authorities, she immediately drove to meet them at a nearby gas station and has fully cooperated with investigators.

“We thank law enforcement for apprehending Vance and protecting others from further harm,” she said.

Karnowski writes for the Associated Press.

The images are jarring. Across the country, federal law enforcement officers in plain clothes and wearing ski masks and balaclavas are seizing and detaining protesters, students and even elected officials. These scenes evoke images of government thugs in violent regimes disappearing opponents.

This is not how policing should look in a democratic society. Which is why everyone — regardless of political affiliation or stance on immigration enforcement — should support bills being introduced in Congress to address this growing problem. Three pieces of legislation — under consideration or expected soon — would prohibit masking by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, including one Thursday from Reps. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) and Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.) and one expected Friday from Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). These are obvious, common-sense measures that shouldn’t need to be codified into law — but given the reality today, and what’s being done on streets across the country, they clearly do.

In the United States, those tasked with enforcing the law are public servants, answerable to the people through their elected representatives. Wearing uniforms and insignia, and publicly identifying themselves, are what make clear an officer’s authority and enable public accountability.

That is why U.S. policing agencies generally have policies requiring officers to wear a badge or other identifier that includes their name or another unique mark, like a badge number. That is why — not so long ago — one of us wrote a letter on behalf of the Justice Department to the police chief in Ferguson, Mo., to ensure that officers were readily identifiable during protests. This letter was sent by the federal government, in the middle of the federal civil rights investigation of the Ferguson Police Department, because ensuring this “basic component of transparency and accountability” was deemed too important to hold off raising until the end of the investigation. Exceptions have long been made for scenarios such as undercover work — but it has long been understood that, as a general rule, American law enforcement officers will identify themselves and show their faces.

This foundational democratic norm is now at risk. In February, masked ICE officers in riot gear raided an apartment complex in Denver, one of the first times Americans saw agents hide their faces on the job. In March, the practice came to widespread attention when Tufts University doctoral student Rumeysa Ozturk was snatched by plainclothes ICE officers, one of them masked, while walking down a street in Somerville, Mass. Throughout the spring, bystanders captured videos of masked or plainclothes ICE enforcement actions from coast to coast, in small towns and big cities.

ICE says it allows this so officers can protect themselves from being recognized and harassed or even assaulted. ICE’s arguments just won’t wash. Its claims about how many officers have been assaulted are subject to serious question. Even if they were not, though, masked law enforcement is simply unacceptable.

At the most basic level, masked, anonymous officers present a safety concern for both the individuals being arrested and the agents. People are understandably far more likely to disregard instructions or even fight back when they think they’re being abducted by someone who is not a law enforcement officer. If the goal is to obtain compliance, masks are counterproductive. It’s far safer to encourage cooperation by appealing to one’s authority as a law enforcement officer — which almost always works.

Related, there is a very real and growing threat of law enforcement impersonation. There has been a disturbing uptick in reported incidents of “ICE impersonations,” in which private individuals dress as ICE or law enforcement officials to exploit the trust and authority invested in law enforcement. Just this month, the assailant in the recent assassination of a Minnesota lawmaker was posing as a police officer. Other examples are abounding across the country. As Princeton University noted in a recent advisory, when law enforcement officers are not clearly identifying themselves, it becomes even easier for impostors to pose as law enforcement. Replicas of ICE jackets have become a bestseller on Amazon.

Most fundamentally, masked detentions undermine law enforcement legitimacy. Government agencies’ legitimacy is essential for effective policing, and legitimacy requires transparency and accountability. When officers hide their identities, it sends the clear message that they do not value those principles, and in fact view them as a threat.

Federal law currently requires certain clear accountability measures by federal immigration enforcement officials, including that officers must identify themselves as officers and state that the person under arrest is, in fact, under arrest as well as the reason. That should sound familiar and be a relief to those of us who are grateful not to live in a secret police state.

But those words are cold comfort if you are confronted by someone in street clothes and a ski mask — with no way to know if they are who they say or whom to hold accountable if they violate your rights.

ICE officials cannot be allowed to continue to enforce our laws while concealing their identities. Transparency and accountability are what separate democracy from authoritarianism and legitimate law enforcement from the secret police in antidemocratic regimes. The images we are seeing are unrecognizable for the United States, and should not be tolerable for anyone.

Barry Friedman is a professor of law at New York University and author of “Unwarranted: Policing Without Permission.” Christy Lopez is a professor from practice at Georgetown University School of Law. She led the police practices unit in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice from 2010-2017.

PUERTO PLATA, Dominican Republic — Wander Franco, the suspended Tampa Bay Rays shortstop charged in a sexual abuse case, was found guilty on Thursday but received a two-year suspended sentence.

Franco was arrested last year after being accused of having a four-month relationship with a girl who was 14 at the time, and of transferring thousands of dollars to her mother to consent to the illegal relationship.

Franco, now 24, also faced charges of sexual and commercial exploitation against a minor, and human trafficking.

Judge Jakayra Veras García said Franco made a bad decision as she addressed him during the ruling.

“Look at us, Wander,” she said. “Do not approach minors for sexual purposes. If you don’t like people very close to your age, you have to wait your time.”

Prosecutors had requested a five-year prison sentence against Franco and a 10-year sentence against the girl’s mother, who was found guilty and will serve the full term.

“Apparently she was the one who thought she was handling the bat in the big leagues,” Veras said of the mother and her request that Franco pay for her daughter’s schooling and other expenses.

Before the three judges issued their unanimous ruling, Veras orally reviewed the copious amount of evidence that prosecutors presented during trial, including certain testimony from 31 witnesses.

“This is a somewhat complex process,” Veras said.

More than an hour into her presentation, Veras said: “The court has understood that this minor was manipulated.”

As the judge continued her review, Franco looked ahead expressionless, leaning forward at times.

Franco, who was once the team’s star shortstop, had signed a $182 million, 11-year contract through 2032 in November 2021 but saw his career abruptly halted in August 2023 after authorities in the Dominican Republic announced they were investigating him for an alleged relationship with a minor. Franco was 22 at the time.

In January 2024, authorities arrested Franco in the Dominican Republic. Six months later, Tampa Bay placed him on the restricted list, which cut off the pay he had been receiving while on administrative leave.

He was placed on that list because he has not been able to report to the team and would need a new U.S. visa to do so.

While Franco awaited trial on conditional release, he was arrested again in November last year following what Dominican authorities called an altercation over a woman’s attention. He was charged with illegally carrying a semiautomatic Glock 19 that police said was registered to his uncle.

That case is still pending in court.

After the ruling, Major League Baseball issued a brief statement noting it had collectively bargained a joint domestic violence, sexual assault and child abuse policy “that reflects our commitment to these issues.”

“We are aware of today’s verdict in the Wander Franco trial and will conclude our investigation at the appropriate time,” MLB said.

Adames writes for the Associated Press. Associated Press writers Dánica Coto in San Juan, Puerto Rico and Ron Blum in New York contributed.

The Trump administration must turn over a cache of documents, photos, internal reports and other evidence detailing the activities of the military in Southern California, a federal judge ruled Tuesday, handing a procedural victory to the state in its fight to rein in thousands of troops under the president’s command.

Ordering “expedited, limited discovery,” Senior District Judge Charles R. Breyer of the federal court in San Francisco also authorized California lawyers to depose key administration officials, and signaled he might review questions about how long troops remain under federal control.

The Department of Justice opposed the move, saying it had “no opportunity to respond.”

The ruling follows a stinging loss for the state in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last Thursday, when an appellate panel struck down Breyer’s temporary restraining order that would have returned control of the troops to California leaders.

Writing for the court, Judge Mark R. Bennett of Honolulu said the judiciary must broadly defer to the president to decide whether a “rebellion” was underway and if civilians protesting immigration agents had sufficiently hampered deportations to warrant an assist from the National Guard or the Marines.

Bennett wrote that the president has authority to take action under a statute that “authorizes federalization of the National Guard when ‘the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.’”

But neither court has yet opined on California’s other major claim: that by aiding immigration raids, troops under Trump’s command violated the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which forbids soldiers from enforcing civilian laws.

Shilpi Agarwal, legal director of the ACLU of Northern California, argued the White House is abusing the post-Civil War law — known in legal jargon as the PCA — by having soldiers support Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations.

“There isn’t a dispute that what the National Guard is doing right now is prohibited by the PCA — legally it absolutely has to be,” said Agarwal. “Going out with ICE officers into the community and playing a role in individual ICE raids really feels like what the Posse Comitatus Act was designed to prohibit.”

In his June 12 order, Breyer wrote that charge was “premature,” saying that there was not yet sufficient evidence to weigh whether that law had been broken.

The 9th Circuit agreed.

“Although we hold that the President likely has authority to federalize the National Guard, nothing in our decision addresses the nature of the activities in which the federalized National Guard may engage,” Bennett wrote. “Before the district court, Plaintiffs argued that certain uses of the National Guard would violate the Posse Comitatus Act … We express no opinion on it.

Now, California has permission to compel that evidence from the government, as well as to depose figures including Ernesto Santacruz, Jr., the director of the ICE field office in L.A., and Maj. Gen. Niave F. Knell, who heads operations for the Army department in charge of “homeland defense.”

With few exceptions, such evidence would immediately become public, another win for Californians, Agarwal said.

“As the facts are further developed in this case, i think it will be come more abundantly clear to everyone how little this invocation of the National Guard was based on,” she said.

In its Monday briefing, the Trump administration argued that troops were “merely performing a protective function” not enforcing the law.

“Nothing in the preliminary injunction record plausibly supports a claim that the Guard and Marines are engaged in execution of federal laws rather than efforts to protect the personnel and property used in the execution of federal laws,” the Justice Department’s motion said.

The federal government also claimed even if troops were enforcing the law, that would not violate the Posse Comitatus Act — and if it did, the Northern District of California would have only limited authority to rule on it.

“Given the Ninth Circuit’s finding, it would be illogical to hold that, although the President can call up the National Guard when he is unable ‘with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States,’ the Guard, once federalized, is forbidden from ‘execut[ing] the laws,’” the motion said.

For Agarwal and other civil liberties experts, the next few weeks will be crucial.

“There’s this atmospheric Rubicon we have crossed when we say based on vandalism and people throwing things at cars, that can be justification for military roaming our streets,” the lawyer said. “There was more unrest when the Lakers won the Championship.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s bombardment of three sites in Iran quickly sparked debate in Congress over his authority to launch the strikes, with Republicans praising Trump for decisive action as many Democrats warned he should have sought congressional approval.

“Well done, President Trump,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) posted on X. Another Republican, Sen. Katie Britt of Alabama, called the bombings “strong and surgical.” The Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), said Trump “has made a deliberate — and correct — decision to eliminate the existential threat posed by the Iranian regime.”

The divisions in Congress reflected an already swirling debate over the president’s ability to conduct such a consequential action without authorization from the House and Senate on the use of military force. Though Trump is hardly the first U.S. president to carry out acts of war without congressional approval, his expansive use of presidential power raised immediate questions about what comes next, and whether he is exceeding the limits of his authority.

“This was a massive gamble by President Trump, and nobody knows yet whether it will pay off,” said Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Democrats, and a few Republicans, said the strikes were unconstitutional, and demanded more information in a classified setting. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said that he received only a “perfunctory notification” without any details, according to a spokesperson.

“No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy,” Schumer said in a statement. “Confronting Iran’s ruthless campaign of terror, nuclear ambitions, and regional aggression demands strength, resolve, and strategic clarity.”

House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York said that Trump “misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East.”

The quick GOP endorsements of stepped-up U.S. involvement in Iran came after Trump publicly considered the strikes for days and many congressional Republicans had cautiously said they thought he would make the right decision. The party’s schism over Iran could complicate the GOP’s efforts to boost Pentagon spending as part of a $350-billion national security package in Trump’s massive tax and spending bill, which he planned to push toward speedy votes this week.

“We now have very serious choices ahead to provide security for our citizens and our allies,” Wicker posted on X.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) both were briefed ahead of the strikes Saturday, according to people familiar with the situation and granted anonymity to discuss it. Thune said Saturday evening that “as we take action tonight to ensure a nuclear weapon remains out of reach for Iran, I stand with President Trump and pray for the American troops and personnel in harm’s way.”

Johnson said in a statement that the military operations “should serve as a clear reminder to our adversaries and allies that President Trump means what he says.”

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford (R-Ark.) said he had also been in touch with the White House and that “I am grateful to the U.S. servicemembers who carried out these precise and successful strikes.”

Breaking from many of his Democratic colleagues, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, a staunch supporter of Israel’s military actions in the Middle East, also praised the U.S. attacks on Iran. “As I’ve long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS,” he posted. “Iran is the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities.”

Both parties have seen splits in recent days over the prospect of striking Iran, including among some of Trump’s most ardent supporters who share his criticism of America’s “forever wars.” Republican Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio posted that “while President Trump’s decision may prove just, it’s hard to conceive a rationale that’s Constitutional.”

Kentucky GOP Rep. Thomas Massie, a longtime opponent of U.S. involvement in foreign wars, posted on X: “This is not Constitutional.”

“This is not our fight,” said Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, one of Trump’s most loyal congressional allies.

Most Democrats have maintained that Congress should have a say, even as presidents in both parties have ignored the legislative branch’s constitutional authority. The Senate was scheduled to vote soon on a resolution from Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) that would require congressional approval before the U.S. declares war on Iran or takes specific military action.

Kaine said the bombings were an act of “horrible judgment.”

“I will push for all senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war,” Kaine said.

Democratic Rep. Greg Casar of Texas, the chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, also called on Congress to immediately pass a war powers resolution. He said politicians had always promised that “new wars in the Middle East would be quick and easy.”

“Then they sent other people’s children to fight and die endlessly,” Casar said. “Enough.”

Jalonick and Mascaro write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — A close ally of fugitive Jalisco New Generation boss known as “El Mencho” for years orchestrated a prolific drug trafficking operation, using a semi-submersible and other methods to avoid detection, and provided weapons to one of Mexico’s most powerful cartels, prosecutors say.

On Friday, José González Valencia was sentenced in Washington’s federal court to 30 years in a U.S. prison following his 2017 arrest at a beach resort in Brazil while vacationing with his family under a fake name.

González Valencia, 49, known as “Chepa,” along with his two brothers, led a group called “Los Cuinis” that financed the drug trafficking operations of Jalisco New Generation, or CJNG — the violent cartel recently designated a foreign terrorist organization by the Trump administration. His brother-in-law is CJNG leader Nemesio Rubén “El Mencho” Oseguera Cervantes, whom for years has been sought by the U.S. government.

Meanwhile, El Mencho’s son-in-law, Cristian Fernando Gutiérrez Ochoa, appeared in the same courtroom earlier Friday to plead guilty in a separate case to a money laundering conspiracy charge. Gutiérrez Ochoa was arrested toward the end of the Biden administration last year in California, where authorities have said he was living under a bogus name after faking his own death and fleeing Mexico.

Together, the prosecutions reflect the U.S. government’s efforts to weaken the brutal CJNG cartel that’s responsible for importing staggering amounts of cocaine, methamphetamine and fentanyl into the U.S. — and track down its elusive leader. The Trump administration has sought to turn up the pressure on CJNG and other cartels with the foreign terrorist organization designation, which gives authorities new tools to prosecute those associated with cartels.

“You can’t totally prosecute your way out of the cartel problem, but you can make an actual impact by letting people know that we’re going to be enforcing this and showing that Mexico is being cooperative with us and then ultimately trying to get high-level targets to sort of set the organization back,” Matthew Galeotti, who lead the Justice Department’s criminal division, said in an interview with the Associated Press.

Trump’s Justice Department has declared dismantling CJNG and other cartels a top priority, and Galetotti said the U.S. in recent months has seen increased cooperation from Mexican officials. In February, Mexico sent 29 cartel figures — including drug lord Rafael Caro Quintero, who was behind the killing of a U.S. DEA agent in 1985 — to the U.S. for prosecution.

The Trump administration has already charged a handful of defendants with terrorism offenses since designating CJNG and seven other Latin American crime organizations as foreign terrorist organizations in February. Galeotti said several additional indictments related to CJNG and other cartels remain under seal.

“We are taking a division-wide approach to this,” Galeotti said. “We’ve got money laundering prosecutors who are not just focused on the cartels themselves … but also on financial facilitators. So when we’re taking this broad approach … that’s why I think we’ve had some of the really significant cases that we’ve had, and we’ve seen a very significant pipeline.”

González Valencia pleaded guilty to international cocaine trafficking in 2022. Authorities say he went into hiding in Bolivia in 2015 after leading Los Cuinis alongside his brothers for more than a decade. He was arrested in 2017 under the first Trump administration after traveling to Brazil, and was later extradited to the U.S.

Los Cuinis used “air, land, sea, and under-the-sea methods” to smuggle drugs bound for the U.S., prosecutors say. In one instance, authorities say González Valencia invested in a shipment of 4,000 kilograms of cocaine that was packed in a semi-submersible vessel to travel from Colombia to Guatemala. Other methods employed by Los Cuinis include hiding drugs in frozen shark carcasses, prosecutors say. He’s also accused of directing the killing of a rival.

He appeared in court wearing an orange jumpsuit and listened to the hearing through an interpreter over headphones. U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell sealed part of the hearing, keeping the press and public out of the courtroom while lawyers argued over the sentence. It was not clear why the judge determined it had to be sealed. González Valencia’s lawyer declined to comment after the hearing.

In the other case, Gutiérrez Ochoa was wanted in Mexico on allegations that he kidnapped two Mexican Navy members in 2021 in the hopes of securing the release of El Mencho’s wife after she had been arrested by Mexican authorities, prosecutors have said. Authorities have said he faked his own death and fled to the U.S. to avoid Mexican authorities, and El Mencho told associates that he killed Gutiérrez Ochoa for lying.

El Mencho’s son, Rubén Oseguera — known as “El Menchito” — was sentenced in March to life in prison after his conviction in Washington’s federal court of conspiring to distribute cocaine and methamphetamine for U.S. importation and using a firearm in a drug conspiracy.

Richer writes for the Associated Press.

On Tuesday, New York City Comptroller Brad Lander was arrested by several masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents at a courthouse in Manhattan as he attempted to steer an individual past immigration authorities. That same day, masked agents outside a Walmart in Pico Rivera detained two individuals — one a target of immigration enforcement, the other a U.S. citizen who tried to intervene.

These two scenes from opposite sides of the country illustrate what has become a more common problem: federal agents wearing masks to avoid recognition. On Thursday, masked individuals said to be affiliated with the Department of Homeland Security descended on a Home Depot in Hollywood and on Dodger Stadium.

Masking is not good law enforcement practice. It may contradict Homeland Security regulations, while potentially providing cover for some officers to violate constitutional and civil rights. It undermines agents’ authority and endangers public safety as well.

The federal government has no specific policy banning immigration agents from wearing masks. But the fact that such practice is not illegal does not make it acceptable. Department of Homeland Security regulations require immigration officers to identify themselves during an arrest or, in cases of a warrantless arrest, provide a statement explaining how they identified themselves. The use of masks seems to violate the intent of these directives for identification.

ICE agents in masks are becoming disturbingly routine. There were ICE agents in masks at the Los Angeles immigration protests recently, just as there have been at enforcement actions in Minneapolis, Boston, Phoenix and across the country. In March a video of Rumeysa Ozturk, a doctoral student at Tufts University, being detained by masked officers on the street went viral.

There seems to be no uniformity in the face coverings immigration agents wear, which has included ski masks, surgical masks, balaclavas and sunglasses. Such inconsistency across a federal workforce flies in the face of sound policing. Masked agents can confuse both bystanders and ICE targets, which risks people interfering with enforcement actions that look more like kidnappings. The International Assn. of Chiefs of Police has warned that the public “may be intimidated or fearful of officers wearing a face covering, which may heighten their defensive reactions.”

Todd Lyons, acting director of ICE, said earlier this month that immigration agents wear masks to protect themselves. “I’m sorry if people are offended by them wearing masks,” he said, “but I’m not going to let my officers and agents go out there and put their lives on the line, their family on the line, because people don’t like what immigration enforcement is.”

Yet law enforcement jobs come with an assumption of exactly that risk. Consider that the overwhelming majority of police officers, sheriffs and FBI agents fulfill their duties without concealing their faces. Correction officers who deal with prisoners do not wear masks, nor do judges who administer our laws. Because these public employees have such tremendous power, their roles require full transparency.

Besides, ICE agents are increasingly targeting noncriminals, which mitigates the argument that agents require masks for safety. According to the research site Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, about 44% of people in ICE detention as of June 1 have no criminal record.

When ICE agents wear masks, there can be unintended consequences. Lately, there has been a spike in people impersonating agents and engaging in harassment, assault and violence. In April, a Florida woman wore a mask as she posed as an ICE agent and attempted to kidnap her ex-boyfriend’s wife.

Ironically, the Trump administration has a double standard around the idea of people wearing masks. It has demanded that universities bar students from wearing masks during protests. In the aftermath of the Los Angeles immigration protests, the president posted on social media, “From now on, MASKS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED to be worn at protests.” Shouldn’t that principle be applied to both sides?

True, it makes sense for immigration agents to use face coverings when they are making arrests of a high-profile target or conducting an undercover operation. However, masking should be the exception, not the norm. If ICE agents are conducting their duties anonymously, they open the door to potential civil rights and due process violations. The practice gives impunity to agents to make unlawful arrests, without the possibility of public accountability.

Masking can also be seen as a show of intimidation by immigration agents — whether their target is an undocumented migrant or an American citizen, like Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, who was arrested outside a New Jersey detention facility in May. Masked ICE agents give the impression of being a secret police force, which is not good for our democracy.

Last week, two Democratic lawmakers in California introduced a bill that would bar local, state and federal law enforcement officers in California from wearing masks on duty (with certain exceptions). Although this is a step in the right direction, it remains unclear whether such a state measure could be applied to federal agents. Congress should ban the use of masks by immigration agents.

ICE officers should not be allowed to conceal their faces. The public’s need for accountability strongly outweighs any rationale for agents’ anonymity.

Raul A. Reyes is an immigration attorney and contributor to NBC Latino and CNN Opinion. X: @RaulAReyes; Instagram: @raulareyes1

An independent commission is urging the California Legislature to establish a new local authority to oversee and coordinate rebuilding after the most destructive fires in Los Angeles County history.

The call for state legislation to create the new rebuilding authority is one of the top proposals of the 20-member Blue Ribbon Commission on Climate Action and Fire-Safe Recovery, which on Friday issued its final recommendations.

Commission members said the new entity would be critical to manage the monumental rebuilding efforts after the January firestorms, which claimed at least 29 lives and destroyed 18,000 homes and other properties.

“The severity of the situation needs extraordinary measures. Business as usual just won’t work,” said Cecilia Estolano, a commission member and former CEO of the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency.

The commission said the proposed Resilient Rebuilding Authority would streamline complex recovery efforts and prioritize the return of residents and businesses as neighborhoods are rebuilt in Altadena and Pacific Palisades.

The authority would use tax-increment financing and other funding sources to buy fire-razed lots that property owners want to sell and guide the rebuilding process — selecting developers and coordinating construction at scale. Those displaced by the fires would get first priority for the new homes.

The commission’s members said this would bring a coordinated approach, avoiding a free-for-all in which investors snap up properties and make new homes unaffordable for displaced people. The authority, the report said, is “designed to counterbalance the forces that drive displacement and inequality in the aftermath of disasters.”

“Left to business as usual, you will see this being driven by land speculation,” Estolano said. The aim is “a more balanced rebuilding, rather than one that’s purely determined by the marketplace.”

Under the commission’s recommendation, the Resilient Rebuilding Authority would be led by a board with members appointed by the governor, state lawmakers and local governments, and with citizen advisory boards providing guidance.

The commission also proposed asking voters to approve a ballot measure to create a new Los Angeles County Fire Control District, funded through a property tax, to focus on wildfire prevention, vegetation management and other efforts to reduce fire risks.

The panel said a property tax or fee, which would require voter approval, could either be assessed on properties in a certain area, or could be assessed county-wide, with higher fees in areas facing high fire hazards that require more investments.

The new district would be charged with creating and maintaining “greenspace buffer zones” between homes and open lands, and taking other measures to safeguard fire-vulnerable neighborhoods.

In all, the commission presented more than 50 recommendations, with a focus on rebuilding after the Palisades and Eaton fires in ways that prepare neighborhoods to better withstand intense wildfires worsened by climate change, and that also help address global warming by encouraging construction of all-electric homes.

The panel said L.A. County should fast-track permitting for all-electric homes, and the state should provide incentives to encourage electrification and solar power. The commission’s report says the new authority should “advance resilience and clean energy objectives.”

The Blue Ribbon Commission was formed by Los Angeles County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath and includes representatives of businesses, local government, civic organizations and environmental groups.

“Key strategies like defensible space, solar with battery backup, and all-electric construction don’t just safeguard homes — they cut costs and protect our environment,” Horvath said, adding that the panel’s proposals lay the groundwork for a “climate-smart, fire-safe future.”

The commission, which had presented its initial proposals in May, said in its report that the fires represented one of the costliest climate disasters in U.S. history and a “harbinger of future risks facing the region in terms of extreme drought, weather, heat, and fire.”

The commission said its goal is to “enable communities to rise out of the ashes stronger.”

“Bold, coordinated action is needed to counter the risks of displacement, rising insurance costs, and deepening community vulnerability to future climate events,” the commission’s report says. “By acting decisively, Greater Los Angeles can become a model for climate-resilient, equitable recovery.”

Some of the commission’s other recommendations include changes such as:

• expanding the federal government’s fire debris removal program;
• standardizing soil testing and cleanup;
• ensuring that construction meets “fire-hardened” building standards and that building codes maximize spacing between buildings;
• creating “buffer zones” with appropriate vegetation to reduce fire risks;
• prioritizing additional water storage capacity in neighborhoods, and systems with external sprinklers to douse homes, parks and schools;
• and creating a voluntary program to “shift development from high-risk, constrained, or uninsurable parcels to more suitable sites.”

Some of these steps can be taken by city or county leaders, utilities or other entities.

Matt Petersen, the commission’s chair and chief executive of Los Angeles Cleantech Incubator, which works with startups to promote renewable energy, said the enormous task of rebuilding demands “additional resources and coordination and economies of scale that we think can only come through this authority.”

Similar development authorities have been set up to oversee rebuilding in areas devastated by other major disasters, such as the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, the 1994 Northridge earthquake, the 9/11 attacks and Hurricane Katrina.

More than 40 academic experts from UCLA provided support to the commission, advising members on recovery and rebuilding after disasters.

“Without intentional, deliberate leadership by government, and by government that’s accountable to the communities, an unmanaged recovery process will only widen disparities,” said Megan Mullin, faculty director of the UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation, who led the university team. “That is seen over and over again through disaster recovery processes.”

Mullin said with strong guidance, government can streamline rebuilding in a way “that makes these communities more fire-safe, more climate-resilient.”

“We cannot ignore the importance of climate change in driving this growing fire hazard that’s looming for the Los Angeles region, and actually throughout the Southwest,” she said. “We can make it as easy as possible for people to rebuild, but to rebuild in a way that will leave them more protected going forward.”

Estolano, the former L.A. redevelopment chief, was displaced from her home in Altadena by the Eaton fire. The home, which she had rented, was damaged by the fire and smoke, and she moved to Los Feliz.

“What I loved most about that community is that it was a mix of incomes. It was a vibrant place with a lot of local commerce,” she said.

She said unless a rebuilding authority is established that can buy properties and hold down land values, that sort of community won’t come back.

“The authority could enable a fair price and give these folks a chance as their first look to return back to what homes will be rebuilt,” she said. “And that will not happen without an authority.”

The commission also called for the city, county and state to work with the new authority to launch a campaign to secure philanthropic contributions to support rebuilding, aiming to raise $200 million over the next 1-2 years, and to help leverage additional financial resources.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided Thursday to leave troops in Los Angeles in the hands of the Trump administration while California’s objections are litigated in federal court, finding the president had broad — though not “unreviewable” — authority to deploy the military in American cities.

“We disagree with Defendants’ primary argument that the President’s decision to federalize members of the California National Guard … is completely insulated from judicial review,” Judge Mark J. Bennett of Honolulu, a Trump appointee, wrote for the appellate panel. “Nonetheless, we are persuaded that, under longstanding precedent interpreting the statutory predecessor … our review of that decision must be highly deferential.”

Legal scholars said the decision was expected — particularly as the 9th Circuit has moved from the country’s most liberal to one of its most “balanced” since the start of Trump’s first term.

“It’s critically important for the people to understand just how much power Congress has given the president through these statutes,” said Eric Merriam, a professor of legal studies at Central Florida University and an appellate military judge.

“Judges for hundreds of years now have given extreme deference to the president in national security decisions, [including] use of the military,” the expert went on. “There is no other area of law where the president or executive gets that level of deference.”

The appellate panel sharply questioned both sides during Tuesday’s hearing, appearing to reject the federal government’s assertion that courts had no right to review the president’s actions, while also undercutting California’s claim that President Trump had overstepped his authority in sending troops to L.A. to quell a “rebellion against the authority of the United States.”

“All three judges seemed skeptical of the arguments that each party was making in its most extreme form,” said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice.

“I was impressed with the questions,” she went on. “I think they were fair questions, I think they were hard questions. I think the judges were wrestling with the right issues.”

The ruling Thursday largely returns the issue to U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer.

Unlike Breyer, whose temporary restraining order on June 12 would have returned control of the National Guard to California, the appellate court largely avoided the question of whether the facts on the ground in Los Angeles amounted to a “rebellion.”

Instead, the ruling focused on the limits of presidential power.

Bennett’s opinion directly refuted the argument — made by Assistant Atty. Gen. Brett Shumate in Tuesday’s hearing — that the decision to federalize National Guard troops was “unreviewable.”

“Defendants argue that this language precludes review,” the judge wrote. “[But Supreme Court precedent] does not compel us to accept the federal government’s position that the President could federalize the National Guard based on no evidence whatsoever, and that courts would be unable to review a decision that was obviously absurd or made in bad faith.”

He also quoted at length from the 1932 Supreme Court decision in Sterling vs. Constantin, writing “[t]he nature of the [president’s] power also necessarily implies that there is a permitted range of honest judgment as to the measures to be taken in meeting force with force, in suppressing violence and restoring order.”

Shumate told the judge he didn’t know the case when Bennett asked him about it early in Tuesday’s hearing.

“That is a key case in that line of cases, and the fact he was not aware of it is extraordinary,” Goitein said.

Merriam agreed — to a point.

“That’s a nightmare we have in law school — it’s a nightmare I’ve had as an appellate judge,” the scholar said.

However, “it’s actually a good thing that the attorney representing the U.S. was not planning to talk about martial law in front of the 9th Circuit,” Merriam said.

One thing Thursday’s ruling did not touch is whether the administration violated the Posse Comitatus Act by deputizing the military to act as civilian law enforcement — an allegation California leveled in its original complaint, but which Breyer effectively tabled last week.

“The Posse Comitatus Act claim has not been resolved because it was essentially not ripe last Thursday,” when troops had just arrived, Goitein said. “It is ripe now.”

“Even if the 9th Circuit agrees with the federal government on everything, we could see a ruling from the district court next week that could limit what troops can do on the ground,” she said.

In the meantime, residents of an increasingly quiet Los Angeles will have to live with the growing number of federal troops.

“[Congress] didn’t limit rebellion to specific types of facts,” Merriam said. “As much as [Angelenos] might say, ‘This is crazy! There’s not a rebellion going on in L.A. right now,’ this is where we are with the law.”

The former Japanese interpreter for Dodgers star Shohei Ohtani surrendered to a federal prison in Pennsylvania on Monday, beginning a nearly five-year prison sentence for bank and tax fraud after he stole nearly $17 million from the Los Angeles Dodgers player.

Ippei Mizuhara, 40, was processed at a low-security federal prison in Allenwood, Pa., his attorney Michael Freedman confirmed. The facility is about 125 miles northwest of Philadelphia.

Mizuhara was sentenced in federal court in Santa Ana in February to four years and nine months for bank and tax fraud. He was also ordered to pay $18 million in restitution, with nearly $17 million going to Ohtani and the remainder to the IRS. He was sentenced to three years’ supervised release on top of the prison sentence.

Authorities said Mizuhara began accessing Ohtani’s account beginning in 2021 and changed its security protocols so he could impersonate Ohtani to authorize wire transfers. He has admitted to using the money to cover his growing gambling bets and debts with an illegal bookmaker, in addition to purchasing $325,000 worth of baseball cards and paying his own dental bills.

He was a close friend and confidant to Ohtani, standing by his side for many of his career highlights, from serving as his catcher during the Home Run Derby at the 2021 All-Star Game, to being there for his two American League MVP wins and his record-shattering $700 million, 10-year deal with the Dodgers.

Ohtani made his highly anticipated pitching debut Monday night for the Dodgers, nearly two years after having elbow surgery.

WASHINGTON — President Trump has fired a Democratic commissioner for the federal agency that oversees nuclear safety as he continues to assert more control over independent regulatory agencies.

Christopher Hanson, a former chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said in a statement Monday that Trump terminated his position as NRC commissioner without cause, “contrary to existing law and longstanding precedent regarding removal of independent agency appointees.”

The firing of Hanson comes as Trump seeks to take authority away from the independent safety agency, which has regulated the U.S. nuclear industry for five decades. Trump signed executive orders in May intended to quadruple domestic production of nuclear power within the next 25 years, a goal experts say the United States is highly unlikely to reach. To speed up the development of nuclear power, the orders grant the U.S. Energy secretary authority to approve some advanced reactor designs and projects.

White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in an emailed statement that “all organizations are more effective when leaders are rowing in the same direction” and that the Republican president reserves the right to “remove employees within his own executive branch.”

Trump fired two of the three Democratic commissioners at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, an independent federal agency responsible for enforcing federal laws that prohibit discrimination in the workplace. In a similar move, two National Labor Relations Board members were fired. Willie Phillips, a Democratic member and former chairman of the independent Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, stepped down in April, telling reporters that the White House asked him to do so.

Trump also signed an executive order to give the White House direct control of independent federal regulators such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission.

New Jersey Rep. Frank Pallone, the top Democrat on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, called Hanson’s firing illegal and another attempt by Trump to undermine independent agencies and consolidate power in the White House.

“Congress explicitly created the NRC as an independent agency, insulated from the whims of any president, knowing that was the only way to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the American people,” Pallone said in a statement.

Senate Democrats also said Trump overstepped his authority. Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, Patty Murray and Martin Heinrich said in a joint statement that “Trump’s lawlessness” threatens the commission’s ability to ensure that nuclear power plants and nuclear materials are safe and free from political interference.

Hanson was nominated to the commission by Trump in 2020. He was appointed chair by former President Biden in January 2021 and served in that role until Trump’s inauguration to a second term as president. Trump selected David Wright, a Republican member of the commission, to serve as chair. Hanson continued to serve on the NRC as a commissioner. His term was due to end in 2029.

Wright’s term expires on June 30. The White House has not said if he will be reappointed.

Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists, called Hanson a dedicated public servant and a strong supporter of the NRC’s public health and safety mission. Firing Hanson is Trump’s “latest outrageous move to undermine the independence and integrity” of the agency that protects the U.S. homeland from nuclear power plant disasters, Lyman said in a statement.

The NRC confirmed Hanson’s service ended on Friday, bringing the panel to two Democrats and two Republicans. The commission has functioned in the past with fewer than the required five commissioners and will continue to do so, the statement said.

McDermott and Daly write for the Associated Press. McDermott reported from Providence, R.I.

Despite a stinging rebuke from a federal judge Thursday, military forces deployed in Los Angeles will remain under presidential control through the weekend, setting up a series of high-stakes showdowns.

On the streets of Los Angeles, protesters will continue to be met with platoons of armed soldiers. State and local officials remain in open conflict with the president. And in the courts, Trump administration lawyers are digging deep into case law in search of archaic statutes that can be cited to justify the ongoing federal crackdown — including constitutional maneuvers invented to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.

Many legal scholars say the current battle over Los Angeles is a test case for powers the White House has long hoped to wield — not just squelching protest or big-footing blue state leaders, but stretching presidential authority to its legal limit.

“A lot rides on what happens this weekend,” said Christopher Mirasola, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center.

By staying the order that would have delivered control of most troops back to California leaders until after the weekend, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals left the Trump administration in command of thousands of National Guard troops and hundreds of Marines ahead of the nationwide “No Kings” protests planned for Saturday.

The Trump administration claimed in court that it had the authority to deploy troops to L.A. due to protesters preventing ICE agents from arresting and deporting unauthorized immigrants — and because demonstrations downtown amounted to “rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.”

But U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer of San Francisco wrote Thursday that Trump had steamrolled state leaders when he federalized California’s troops and deployed them against protesters.

“His actions were illegal — both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” Breyer wrote.

While ICE “was not able to detain as many people as Defendants believe it could have,” it was still able to uphold U.S. immigration law without the military’s help, Breyer ruled. A few belligerents among thousands of peaceful protesters did not make an insurrection, he added.

“The idea that protesters can so quickly cross the line between protected conduct and ‘rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States’ is untenable and dangerous,” the judge wrote.

The 9th Circuit stayed Breyer’s ruling hours after he issued a temporary restraining order that would have allowed California leaders to withdraw the National Guard soldiers from L.A.

The pause will remain in effect until at least Tuesday when a three-judge panel — made up of two appointed by President Trump and one by former President Biden — will hear arguments over whether the troops can remain under federal direction.

The court battle has drawn on precedents that stretch back to the foundation of the country, offering starkly contrasting visions of federal authority and states’ rights.

The last time the president federalized the National Guard over the objections of a state governor was in 1965 when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to protect Martin Luther King Jr. and the Selma to Montgomery March in defiance of then-Gov. George Wallace.

But sending troops in to assist ICE has less in common with Johnson’s move than it does with President Millard Fillmore’s actions a century earlier, Mirasola said. Beginning in 1850, the Houston law professor said, Fillmore sent troops to accompany federal marshals seeking to apprehend escaped slaves who had fled north.

Trump’s arguments to deploy the National Guard and Marines in support of federal immigration enforcement efforts rely on the same principle, drawn from the “take care” clause of Article II of the Constitution, Mirasola said. He noted that anger over the military’s repeated clashes with civilians helped stoke the flames that led to the Civil War.

“Much of the population actively opposed enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act,” the professor said.

Some analysts believe Trump strategically chose immigration as the issue through which to advance his version of the so-called “unitary executive theory,” a legal doctrine that says the legislature has no power and the judiciary has no right to interfere with how the president wields control of the executive branch.

“It’s not a coincidence that we’re seeing immigration be the flash point,” said Ming Hsu Chen, a professor at the UCSF Law School. “Someone who wants to exert strong federal power over immigration would see L.A. as a highly symbolic place, a ground zero to show their authority.”

Chen, who heads the Race, Immigration, Citizenship, and Equality Program at UCSF Law, said it’s clear Trump and his advisers have a “vision of how ICE can be emboldened.”

“He’s putting that on steroids,” Chen said. “He’s folding together many different kinds of excesses of executive power as though they were the same thing.”

Some experts point out that Judge Breyer’s order is limited only to California, which means that until it’s fully litigated — a process that can drag on for weeks or months — the president may attempt similar moves elsewhere.

“The president could try the same thing in another jurisdiction,” said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at NYU’s Brennan Center for Justice.

“President Trump’s memorandum to deploy troops in Los Angeles made it very clear he thinks it’s appropriate … wherever protests are occurring,” Goitein said. “He certainly seems to think that even peaceful protests can be met with force.”

Experts said Breyer’s ruling set a high bar for what may be considered “rebellion” under the law, making it harder — if it is allowed to stand on appeal — for the administration to credibly claim one is afoot in L.A.

“It’s hard to imagine that whatever we see over the weekend is going to be an organized, armed attempt to overthrow the government,” Goitein said.

The Trump administration, meanwhile, hasn’t budged from its insistence that extreme measures are needed to restore order and protect federal agents as they go about their work.

“The rioters will not stop or slow ICE down from arresting criminal illegal aliens,” the Department of Homeland Security said in a news release this week, which included mugshots of several alleged criminals who had been arrested. “Murderers, pedophiles, and drug traffickers. These are the types of criminal illegal aliens that rioters are fighting to protect.”

Even after the 9th Circuit decision, the issue could still be headed to the Supreme Court. Some legal scholars fear Trump might defy the court if he keeps losing. Others say he may be content with the havoc wrought while doomed cases wend their way through the justice system.

“It’s a strange thing for me to say as a law professor that maybe the law doesn’t matter,” Chen said. “I don’t know that [Trump] particularly cares that he’s doing something illegal.”

Times staff writer Sandra McDonald contributed to this report.

After she was assaulted by her romantic partner in 2000 while living in Los Angeles County, Maria Gutierrez Saragon turned to a family friend who said he could help her secure immigration papers.

Because she had been the victim of a crime, the friend said, he could help her obtain authorization to stay in the U.S.

While it’s true that immigrant crime victims qualify for special benefits in some instances, the promise to get Gutierrez Saragon citizenship within three months at a discount dragged on for more than a decade. A housekeeper with a modest income, she was slowly bled for more than $100,000 through a mix of false assurances and threats.

“I had to give him all my money instead of being able to buy my children what they need,” she said between sobs in an interview. “It was like torture. Every time the phone rang or every time a paper arrived for me, they were asking for more money.”

She was a victim of so-called notario fraud, in which scammers acting as lawyers extract large sums from vulnerable immigrants.

The swindle is not a new one. But despite longstanding campaigns to raise awareness, advocates and law enforcement officials say they are concerned about a resurgence under the second Trump administration. Sweeps by federal agents and the deployment of troops to Los Angeles, they say, have created a climate of fear ripe for exploitation.

The hundreds caught up in the recent raids will be seeking affordable legal help as they fight to keep the lives they have built in the United States. Compounding matters, attorneys who specialize in immigration law say there is a shortage of qualified people working in the field. Unless separately appearing in state or federal court on criminal charges, people in civil immigration proceedings are typically not entitled to a court-appointed lawyer.

The scam that bilked Gutierrez Saragon, a native of Mexico, hinges on confusion over what a notary public does in the U.S., and how it differs from Latin America and elsewhere, where “notarios” have far more legal standing.

A notary public in the U.S. serves as an impartial witness when important documents are signed. But in other parts of the world, the term refers to an attorney with special credentials who has received the equivalent of a law license and who is authorized to represent others before the government, according to Victor D. Lopez, a professor of legal studies at Hofstra University.

The type of fraud can vary. Some victims pay money to notarios who promise to represent them in hearings with immigration officials and never show up. Others see valid asylum claims end with deportation orders because the information submitted was false, bearing no resemblance to the harrowing experiences that forced them out of their home countries.

“It’s the type of crime that preys upon the most needy and desperate people,” Lopez said, adding that few places outside of Colorado have taken meaningful steps to crack down on immigration-related abuses.

Because of underreporting, he and others said, there is little reliable data on how many fraud victims there are each year. Many who have suffered losses are afraid to contact law enforcement because of their immigration status.

Gutierrez Saragon recounted in Spanish how she was duped by her notario, whom she and an attorney she found to help unravel the scheme identified as Fidel Marquez Cortes.

It started small, Gutierrez Saragon recalled: A few hundred dollars to process her fingerprints. Several hundred more for background checks. Trips to New York and Washington, D.C., which he claimed he needed to take to collect her passport. Each time, she gave him money to pay for the flight, hotel, rental car and gas, she said, but he always came back with an excuse for why he needed more time and cash.

Whenever she pushed back, she claimed, Marquez Cortes warned that she’d lose her chance at citizenship. She recalled how he would show her official-looking documents that he claimed were from a law firm in Orange County — all written in English and full of legal jargon she didn’t understand.

Only later did she learn that he had created a fake letterhead for the law firm, and was using the money she gave him to pay for his back taxes, child support and even a speeding ticket, she said.

Eventually, in February 2011, Gutierrez Saragon found a lifeline in the Immigrants Rights Project, a Los Angeles nonprofit that offers pro bono services for people seeking a path to citizenship or permanent residency. She came into their office terrified that it was her last day in the country, attorney Gina Amato Lough recalled.

“She was trembling,” Lough said.

Her new client’s first words, Lough said, suggested she thought she was turning herself in to the authorities rather than seeking free legal counsel: “I know that you’re the immigration service and you have the power to deport me. But the day has come where I just have to know what’s happened to my case.”

Lough encouraged her to file a police report the following day at Olympic Division station. But an officer at the front desk turned her away, saying it wasn’t a crime and that she needed to go to a courthouse to file a civil complaint. Lough accompanied her the following day and was told by another officer that they didn’t take reports for such cases “because it’s so common in L.A. that we couldn’t possibly prosecute it.”

After Lough protested, police agreed to take a report and eventually, the man was charged with grand theft and convicted.

Despite what Lough described as “a lack of reputable immigration attorneys” to help people through the labyrinthine U.S. immigration process, her group fought against a proposal by the state bar association to help bridge the justice gap by creating a paraprofessional classification, which would lower the bar to entry in the field.

Lough worried such a change would create more confusion and lead to more fraud. She called for local authorities to take seriously an issue that is often overlooked.

Most district attorneys are reluctant to prosecute unless there are “multiple cases and hundreds of dollars in losses,” she said. “There is a huge lack of enforcement within L.A. County.”

Los Angeles County Supervisor Hilda Solis echoed that sentiment.

Solis said she has fought for stronger regulations for a problem that isn’t confined to the Latino community, pointing to recent cases in the county involving immigrants from Asian and European countries.

“How do you deter the behavior if there is no teeth in the law?” Solis asked.

Some attorneys who practice immigration law say they are coming across scams that play out entirely online, allowing perpetrators to vanish before authorities even have a chance to investigate.

Lindsay Toczylowski, executive director of the Immigrant Defenders Law Center, said she recently had a client arrive saying they were expecting to collect a green card after sending money to someone they had been communicating with on WhatsApp.

The person on WhatsApp told the client they could pick up the proof of permanent residency status with Toczylowski’s organization, which was a lie.

“Essentially that person was masquerading as a nonprofit organization,” Toczylowski said, adding that her group is preparing a public service announcement to warn about the scam.

Other times, immigration consultants aren’t out to defraud their clients, but still sometimes “make promises that they can’t keep,” she said.

Toczylowski’s center relies on local, state and federal funding, the latter of which has been threatened — a troubling development that comedian John Oliver highlighted on his show “Last Week Tonight.” After the episode aired, Toczylowski said the center received a flood of online donations, but not nearly enough to offset potential cuts to federal funding.

The center is also a plaintiff in an ongoing federal lawsuit out of Northern California against the Department of Human Services over slashed funding, she said.

When the case involving Marquez Cortes, the man who defrauded Gutierrez Saragon, finally went to trial, he was found guilty and a superior court judge ordered him to pay three installments totaling $66,000 in restitution or face a two-year prison sentence.

He eventually fled to Mexico, where a bail bondsman tracked him down and he was arrested by local police, according to Lough.

Lough said she pushed for the man to be extradited back to the U.S. to serve out his sentence, but to this day she’s not sure what his fate was. Gutierrez Saragon hasn’t recovered her losses.

“She’s never seen a dime,” Lough said. “And he’s never spent not a day in jail.”

President Trump got his way Friday, just not on his terms.

Two weeks after Trump said he fired the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery director, Kim Sajet, she stepped down of her own accord.

“It has been the honor of a lifetime to lead the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery. This was not an easy decision, but I believe it is the right one,” Sajet wrote in a note to staff shared in an email by the Smithsonian Institution’s leader, Lonnie Bunch. “From the very beginning, my guiding principle has been to put the museum first. Today, I believe that stepping aside is the best way to serve the institution I hold so deeply in my heart. The role of a museum director has never been about one individual — it is a shared mission, driven by the passion, creativity, and dedication of an extraordinary team.”

The news follows Trump’s May 30 post on Truth Social that he was firing Sajet, the first woman to hold her post at the National Portrait Gallery, for being “a highly partisan person, and a strong supporter of DEI.”

Trump’s authority to fire Sajet immediately came under question. The Smithsonian is not part of the executive branch, and the president does not choose its Board of Regents. Reports soon surfaced that Sajet continued to show up at work each day.

On Monday the Board of Regents held a lengthy meeting and then issued a statement that said Secretary Bunch had the board’s support “in his authority and management of the Smithsonian.” The statement declared the institution’s full independence, including in personnel decisions. The statement said Bunch had been directed to “articulate specific expectations to museum directors and staff regarding content in Smithsonian museums, give directors reasonable time to make any needed changes to ensure unbiased content, and to report back to the Board on progress and any needed personnel changes based on success or lack thereof in making the needed changes.”

It is unclear if Sajet, who served as the museum’s director for 12 years, made her decision prior to the Board of Regents meeting. The Smithsonian did not respond to a question about that.

“Once again, we thank Kim for her service. Her decision to put the museum first is to be applauded and appreciated,” Bunch wrote in his email to staff. “I know this was not an easy decision. She put the needs of the Institution above her own, and for that we thank her.”

Kevin Gover, the undersecretary for museums and culture, will serve as acting director, Bunch said.

The Smithsonian has a delicate task ahead as it moves forward following Trump’s March 27 executive order titled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.” It directs Vice President JD Vance to remove “improper ideology” from the Smithsonian’s 21 museums and the National Zoo in Washington, D.C., and threatens to end federal funding for exhibitions and programs based on racial themes that “divide Americans.”

Bunch’s email to staff stressed that the organization has an imperative to remain nonpartisan.

After days of fiery protest against federal immigration raids, Los Angeles residents and officials braced for the arrival of hundreds of U.S. Marines on Tuesday in what some called an unprecedented and potentially explosive deployment of active-duty troops with hazy mission objectives.

As Trump administration officials vowed to crack down on “rioters, looters and thugs,” state and local officials decried the mobilization of 700 troops from the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center in Twentynine Palms, calling it a clear violation of law and civility. L.A. Mayor Karen Bass even likened the deployment to “an experiment” that nobody asked to be a part of.

According to the U.S. Northern Command, which oversees troops based in the United States, the Marines will join “seamlessly” with National Guard troops under “Task Force 51” — the military’s designation of the Los Angeles forces. The Marines, like the Guard, they said, “have been trained in de-escalation, crowd control and rules for the use of force.”

Air Force Gen. Gregory Guillot told The Times on Tuesday that the Marines in Los Angeles were limited in their authority, deployed only to defend federal property and federal personnel. They do not have arrest power, he said.

“They are not law enforcement officers, and they do not have the authority to make arrests,” Guillot said. “There are very unique situations where they could detain someone … but they could only detain that person long enough to hand it off to a proper law enforcement official.”

But military experts have raised practical concerns about the unclear parameters of the Marines’ objective. They also warn that sending in Marines without a request from a governor — a highly unusual step that has not been made since the civil rights era in 1965 — could potentially inflame the situation.

U.S. Marines are trained for overseas conflict zones, with deployments in recent decades in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. But the roles they have played in those nations — including providing artillery support to coalition forces fighting against Islamic State militants and advising and training local security forces — are quite different from what they might face as they confront protesters in Los Angeles.

“Marines are trained to fight, that’s the first thing they’re trained to do,” said Jennifer Kavanagh, director of military analysis at Defense Priorities, a military research group. “So I think you do have a little bit of mismatch in skills here.”

“In a crisis, when they’re forced to make a snap decision, do they have enough training and experience to make the one that de-escalates the situation rather than escalates it? I think that’s a question mark,” Kavanagh said.

Hours after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told congressional lawmakers Tuesday that the mobilization of troops to Los Angeles to curtail protests would cost $134 million, President Trump told U.S. Army troops at Ft. Bragg in North Carolina that he deployed thousands of National Guard troops and hundreds of Marines “to protect federal law enforcement from the attacks of a vicious and violent mob.”

But city and state officials have repeatedly said that troops are not necessary to contain the protests.

On Monday night, California Gov. Gavin Newsom called the deployment of Marines “a blatant abuse of power” and filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the deployment.

Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell warned that — “absent clear coordination” — the prospect of Marines descending on Los Angeles “presents a significant logistical and operational challenge for those of us charged with safeguarding this city.”

However, Guillot said coordinating among different agencies “hasn’t been a challenge to us at all.”

“I think people understand that we’re there for a very specific purpose,” he said. “We’re very highly trained, professional and disciplined, and people have been very cooperative so far.”

By Tuesday afternoon, all 700 Marines had arrived in the Greater Los Angeles area, Guillot said. At least one convoy of U.S. Marine vehicles from Twentynine Palms had arrived at Orange County’s Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach under police escort.

The mobilized Marines and National Guard troops will be stationed in facilities across the region, including Seal Beach, Los Alamitos and a number of National Guard armories, Guillot said. He didn’t provide further details.

Over the last few days, National Guard members have already been stationed at a few federal buildings and have accompanied Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents on missions, Guillot said. He expects Marines will be mobilized on the ground Wednesday, if not Tuesday evening, after wrapping up final training.

It is rare for U.S. Marines to be sent to an American city. The last time they were deployed in the U.S. was after riots broke out in Los Angeles in 1992 after the acquittal of four LAPD officers who were recorded beating a Black motorist, Rodney G. King.

Back then, President George H.W. Bush acted at the request of California Gov. Pete Wilson and Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley after what The Times described as “three days of the worst urban unrest in Los Angeles history.”

Deploying Marines to Los Angeles is not only a dramatic escalation of events, but also potentially illegal, according to Abigail Hall, a defense scholar and senior fellow at the Independent Institute, a nonprofit think tank based in Oakland.

Bringing in the Marines to L.A., she said, violates the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 law enacted after the Civil War, which forbids active-duty federal forces to provide regular civilian law enforcement unless authorized by Congress or the president invokes the Insurrection Act.

Trump has yet to invoke the Insurrection Act.

“I don’t see any way that this is not a direct violation of the Posse Comitatus Act,” Hall said. “We’re not at war, we’ve not invoked the Insurrection Act of 1807 — and even if we did, that’s what the National Guard is for. It’s not what the Marines are for.”

Kavanagh didn’t comment on the deployment’s legality, but called it unprecedented in modern times. She worried that could make its mission and parameters unclear for troops.

The last time the military was deployed without a governor’s request or approval, military experts said, was to facilitate court-ordered desegregation in Southern states during the civil rights movement in the 1960s.

Kori Schake, senior fellow and director of foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, said the Trump administration appeared to be trying out a new way to get around the restrictions on domestic law enforcement by the American military.

“The authority the president is claiming is his constitutional authority under what’s called the Take Care clause … he’s claiming the federal responsibility to protect federal agents and federal property operations. That authority has never been tested in court.”

Such an approach, Schake said, was fraught with more than legal risk.

“If violence burgeons, tempers are running high, the Marines are armed, this could spiral out of control,” Schake said.

The L.A. deployment, Kavanagh said, could also be a jarring mission for Marines who signed up to go abroad and defend America’s freedom — and instead are facing off with fellow citizens.

“Does everyone know the rules of engagement?” Kavanagh asked of the L.A. mission. “Are they clear?”

She also worried that the troops deployed to L.A. are likely to have some of the most limited experience. Guard members are not full time and undergo less frequent training, and Marines retain the youngest service members of all the military branches. Nearly three-quarters of active-duty enlisted members of the Marine Corps are 25 or younger, according to a 2022 Department of Defense report. The average age is 24, compared with 27 for the Army and 28 for the Air Force.

Schake, however, pointed out that although Marines may be the youngest cohort in the military, they are well trained in de-escalation tactics.

“The wars that the United States has been fighting for the last 25 years have required incredible discipline on the use of force by the military in Afghanistan and in Iraq in particular, so they are trained for de-escalating conflict,” Schake said. “I think actually, it’s quite possible they’re better trained at de-escalation of violence than the police forces are.”

In that sense, Schake said she was less worried about violence on the streets than about “creeping authoritarianism.”

“The way the president, that Homeland secretary, the secretary of Defense, the White House press spokesman are talking is incendiary and reckless,” Schake said.

“They’re calling the city of Los Angeles — where 1 in 40 Americans live — a hellscape, and everybody in the city a criminal. They’re describing protests that are really peaceful as an insurrection. And that’s a very reckless thing to do in a difficult situation.”

Times staff writers Hayley Smith and Christopher Buchanan contributed to this report.

The Trump administration announced Saturday that National Guard troops were being sent to Los Angeles — an action Gov. Gavin Newsom said he opposed. President Trump is activating the Guard by using powers that have been invoked only rarely.

Trump said in a memo to the Defense and Homeland Security departments that he was calling the National Guard into federal service under a provision called Title 10 to “temporarily protect ICE and other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions.”

What is Title 10?

Title 10 provides for activating National Guard troops for federal service. Such Title 10 orders can be used for deploying National Guard members in the United States or abroad.

Erwin Chemerinsky, one of the nation’s leading constitutional law scholars, said “for the federal government to take over the California National Guard, without the request of the governor, to put down protests is truly chilling.”

“It is using the military domestically to stop dissent,” said Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law. “It certainly sends a message as to how this administration is going to respond to protests. It is very frightening to see this done.”

Tom Homan, the Trump administration’s “border czar,” announced the plan to send the National Guard in an interview Saturday on Fox News as protesters continued confronting immigration agents during raids.

“This is about enforcing the law,” Homan said. “We’re not going to apologize for doing it. We’re stepping up.”

“We’re already ahead of the game. We were already mobilizing,” he added. “We’re gonna bring the National Guard in tonight. We’re gonna continue doing our job. We’re gonna push back on these people.”

Newsom criticized the federal action, saying that local law enforcement was already mobilized and that sending in troops was a move that was “purposefully inflammatory” and would “only escalate tensions.”

The governor called the president and they spoke for about 40 minutes, according to the governor’s office.

Other rarely used powers

Critics have raised concerns that Trump also might try to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 to activate troops as part of his campaign to deport large numbers of undocumented immigrants.

The president has the authority under the Insurrection Act to federalize the National Guard units of states to suppress “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” that “so hinders the execution of the laws” that any portion of the state’s inhabitants are deprived of a constitutional right and state authorities are unable or unwilling to protect that right.

The American Civil Liberties Union has warned that Trump’s use of the military domestically would be misguided and dangerous.

According to the ACLU, Title 10 activation of National Guard troops has historically been rare and Congress has prohibited troops deployed under the law from providing “direct assistance” to civilian law enforcement — under both a separate provision of Title 10 as well as the Posse Comitatus Act.

The Insurrection Act, however, is viewed as an exception to the prohibitions under the Posse Comitatus Act.

In 1958, President Eisenhower invoked the Insurrection Act to deploy troops to Arkansas to enforce the Supreme Court’s decision ending racial segregation in schools, and to defend Black students against a violent mob.

Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, wrote in a recent article that if Trump were to invoke the Insurrection Act “to activate federalized troops for mass deportation — whether at the border or somewhere else in the country — it would be unprecedented, unnecessary, and wrong.”

Chemerinsky said invoking the Insurrection Act and nationalizing a state’s National Guard has been reserved for extreme circumstances in which there are no other alternatives to maintain the peace.

Chemerinsky said he feared that in this case the Trump administration was seeking “to send a message to protesters of the willingness of the federal government to use federal troops to quell protests.”

In 1992, California Gov. Pete Wilson requested that President George H.W. Bush use the National Guard to quell the unrest in Los Angeles after police officers were acquitted in the beating of Rodney King. That was under a different provision of federal law that allows the president to use military force in the United States. That provision applies if a state governor or legislature requests it.

California politics editor Phil Willon contributed to this report.

The mandate that the DoT challenged was a key part of former US President Joe Biden’s plan to address climate change.

The United States Department of Transportation (DoT) has declared that former President Joe Biden’s administration exceeded its authority by assuming a high uptake of electric vehicles in calculating fuel economy rules.

With that declaration on Friday, the DoT paved the way for looser fuel standards and published the “Resetting the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Program” (CAFE) rule. A future separate rule from the administration of President Donald Trump will revise the fuel economy requirements.

“We are making vehicles more affordable and easier to manufacture in the United States. The previous administration illegally used CAFE standards as an electric vehicle mandate,” Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said in a statement.

The department’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in writing its rule last year under Biden, had “assumed significant numbers of EVs would continue to be produced regardless of the standards set by the agency, in turn increasing the level of standards that could be considered maximum feasible,” it said Friday.

A shift away from Biden policies 

In January, Duffy signed an order directing NHTSA to rescind fuel economy standards issued under Biden for the 2022-2031 model years that had aimed to drastically reduce fuel use for cars and trucks.

In a release last year, the DoT, then led by Pete Buttigieg, put in place a required fuel economy to increase by 2 percent for cars made between 2027 and 2031.

At the time, the DoT said it would help save consumers upwards of $600 on gas every year. It was also part of the Biden administration’s plan to address climate change.

“These new fuel economy standards will save our nation billions of dollars, help reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, and make our air cleaner for everyone. Americans will enjoy the benefits of this rule for decades to come,” then NHTSA Deputy Administrator Sophie Shulman said at the time.

In June 2024, the NHTSA said it would hike CAFE requirements to about 50.4 miles per gallon (4.67 litres per 100km) by 2031 from 39.1mpg currently for light-duty vehicles.

The agency last year said the rule for passenger cars and trucks would reduce gasoline consumption by 64 billion gallons and cut emissions by 659 million metric tons, cutting fuel costs with net benefits estimated at $35.2bn.

Late on Thursday, Senate Republicans proposed eliminating fines for failures to meet CAFE rules as part of a wide-ranging tax bill, the latest move aimed at making it easier for automakers to build gas-powered vehicles.

Last year, Chrysler-parent Stellantis paid $190.7m in civil penalties for failing to meet US fuel economy requirements for 2019 and 2020 after paying nearly $400m for penalties from 2016 through 2019. GM previously paid $128.2m in penalties for 2016 and 2017.

Stellantis said it supported the Senate Republican proposal “to provide relief while DoT develops its proposal to reset the CAFE standards … The standards are out of sync with the current market reality, and immediate relief is necessary to preserve affordability and freedom of choice.”

GM declined to comment.

BOULDER, Colo. — A federal judge issued an order Wednesday to prevent the deportation of the wife and five children of an Egyptian man charged in a firebombing attack in Boulder, Colo.

U.S. District Judge Gordon P. Gallagher granted a request from the family of Mohamed Sabry Soliman to halt deportation proceedings of his wife and five children who were taken into federal custody Tuesday by U.S. immigration officials.

The family members have not been charged in the attack on a group demonstrating for the release of Israeli hostages in Gaza. Soliman faces federal hate crime charges and state charges of attempted murder in the Sunday attack in downtown Boulder.

U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem said Wednesday that they are being processed for removal proceedings. It’s rare that family members of a person accused of a crime are detained and threatened with deportation.

Soliman’s wife, 18-year-old daughter, two minor sons and two minor daughters all are Egyptian citizens, the Department of Homeland Security said in a statement.

“We are investigating to what extent his family knew about this heinous attack, if they had knowledge of it, or if they provided support to it,” Noem said in a statement.

Noem also said federal authorities will immediately crack down on people who overstay their visas in response to the Boulder attack.

Soliman told authorities that no one, including his family, knew about his planned attack, according to court documents that, at times, spelled his name as “Mohammed.”

Earlier Wednesday, authorities raised the number of victims in the attack from 12 to 15, plus a dog.

Boulder County officials who provided updates on the number of victims said in a news release they include eight women and seven men, ranging in age from 25 to 88. The Associated Press left an email message Wednesday with prosecutors seeking more details on the newly identified victims and the dog.

Mohamed Sabry Soliman, 45, had planned to kill all of the roughly 20 participants in Sunday’s demonstration at the popular Pearl Street pedestrian mall, but he threw just two of his 18 Molotov cocktails while yelling “Free Palestine,” police said. Soliman, an Egyptian man who federal authorities say has been living in the U.S. illegally, didn’t carry out his full plan “because he got scared and had never hurt anyone before,” police wrote in an affidavit.

His wife and five children were taken into custody Tuesday by U.S. immigration officials, and the White House said they could be swiftly deported. It’s rare that family members of a person accused of a crime are detained and threatened with deportation in this way.

“Anyone who thinks they can come to America and advocate for antisemitic violence and terrorism — think again,” Noem said in a statement. “You are not welcome here. We will find you, deport you and prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law.

Soliman told authorities that no one, including his family, knew about his plans for the attack, according to court documents that, at times, spelled his name as “Mohammed.”

According to an FBI affidavit, Soliman told police he was driven by a desire “to kill all Zionist people” — a reference to the movement to establish and protect a Jewish state in Israel. Authorities said he expressed no remorse about the attack.

A vigil was scheduled for Wednesday evening at the local Jewish community center to support those affected by the attack.

Defendant’s immigration status

Soliman was born in el-Motamedia, an Egyptian farming village in the Nile Delta province of Gharbia that’s located about 75 miles north of Cairo, according to an Egyptian security official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to talk to the media.

Before moving to Colorado Springs three years ago, he spent 17 years in Kuwait, according to court documents.

He has been living in the U.S. illegally, having arrived in August 2022 on a tourist visa that expired in February 2023, Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a post on X. She said Soliman filed for asylum in September 2022 and was granted a work authorization in March 2023, but that it also expired.

DHS did not respond to requests for additional information about the immigration status of his wife and children and the U.S. State Department said that visa records are confidential. The New York Times, citing McLaughlin, said his family’s visas have since been revoked and they were arrested Tuesday by ICE.

Hundreds of thousands of people overstay their visas each year in the United States, according to Homeland Security Department reports.

The case against Soliman

Soliman told authorities that he had been planning the attack for a year and was waiting for his daughter to graduate before carrying it out, the affidavit said.

A newspaper in Colorado Springs that profiled one of Soliman’s children in April noted the family’s journey from Egypt to Kuwait and then to the U.S. It said after initially struggling in school, she landed academic honors and volunteered at a local hospital.

Soliman currently faces federal hate crime charges and attempted murder charges at the state level, but authorities say additional charges could be brought. He’s being held in a county jail on a $10-million bond and is scheduled to make an appearance in state court on Thursday.

His attorney, Kathryn Herold, declined to comment after a state court hearing Monday.

Witnesses and police have said Soliman threw two incendiary devices, catching himself on fire as he hurled the second. Authorities said they believe Soliman acted alone. Although they did not elaborate on the nature of his injuries, a booking photo showed him with a large bandage over one ear.

The attack unfolded against the backdrop of the Israel-Hamas war, which continues to inflame global tensions and has contributed to a spike in antisemitic violence in the United States. The attack happened at the beginning of the Jewish holiday of Shavuot and barely a week after a man who also yelled “Free Palestine” was charged with fatally shooting two Israeli Embassy staffers outside a Jewish museum in Washington.

Six victims hospitalized

The victims ranged in age from 25 to 88, and the nature of some of their injuries spanned from serious to minor, officials said. They were members of the volunteer group called Run For Their Lives who were holding their weekly demonstration.

Three victims were still hospitalized Tuesday at the UCHealth University of Colorado Hospital, spokesperson Kelli Christensen said.

One of the 15 victims was a child when her family fled the Nazis during the Holocaust, said Ginger Delgado of the Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office, who is acting as a spokesperson for the family of the woman, who doesn’t want her name used.

Slevin, Bedayn and Santana write for the Associated Press. AP reporters Eric Tucker in Washington; Heather Hollingsworth in Kansas City, Mo.; Samy Magdy in Cairo; Sean Murphy in Oklahoma City; and Hallie Golden in Seattle contributed to this report.

Before the sun rose Tuesday, Benito Flores fortified the front door of his one-bedroom duplex on a narrow street in El Sereno.

Flores, a 70-year-old retired welder, had illegally seized a home five years ago after its owner, the California Department of Transportation, had left it vacant. He’d been allowed to stay for a few months, then was directed to this nearby home owned by the agency, but now it was time to go.

Later in the morning, deputies with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department were scheduled to lock him out.

Flores clearly had other plans. Over months, he’d sawed wooden two-by-fours to use as a brace between the front door and an interior wall to make it harder to breach. He bolted shut the metal screen door. Once Flores was satisfied he’d secured the entrance Tuesday, he retreated to a wooden structure he built 28 feet high in an ash tree in the backyard.

If the police wanted him to leave, they’d have to come get him in his tree house.

“I plan to resist as long as I can,” Flores said.

The homemade structure, 6 feet tall and 3 feet wide, represents the last stand for Flores and a larger protest that captured national attention in March 2020. Flores and a dozen others occupied empty homes owned by Caltrans, acquired by the hundreds a half-century ago for a freeway expansion that never happened. They said they wanted to call attention to the homelessness crisis in Los Angeles.

The issue, Flores said, remains no less urgent today. Political leaders, he argued, have failed to provide housing for all who need it.

“They don’t care about the people,” Flores said. “Who is supposed to give permanent housing to elders, disabled and families with children? It is the city and the state. And they are evicting me.”

For the public agencies involved, the resistance represents an intransigence that belies the assistance and leniency they’ve offered to Flores and fellow protesters who call their group “Reclaiming Our Homes.” The state allowed group members, or Reclaimers, to remain legally and paying rents far below market rates for two years. Since then, the agencies have continued to offer referrals for permanent housing and financial settlements of up to $20,000 if group members left voluntarily.

Evictions, they’ve said, were a last resort and required by law.

“We don’t have any authority to operate outside of that,” said Tina Booth, director of asset management for the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles, which is operating the housing program on Caltrans’ behalf.

Four Reclaimers, including Flores, remain in the homes.

Two have accepted settlements and are expected to leave within weeks. The final Reclaimer also has a court-ordered eviction against him, but plans to leave without incident.

Caltrans wants to sell Flores’ home and the other empty houses in El Sereno to public or nonprofit housing providers, which would make them available to low-income residents for rent or purchase.

Flores said evicting him makes no sense because the property is intended to be used as affordable housing that he qualifies for. Flores, who suffers from diabetes, collects about $1,200 a month in Social Security and supplemental payments. If he’s removed, Flores said, he has no other option except to sleep in his van — where he lived for 14 years before the home seizure.

“We are going to live on the streets for the rest of our lives,” Flores said of he and others evicted in the protest group in an open letter he sent to Sheriff Robert Luna last week.

Flores received advance notice of the lockout. His supporters began arriving at 6 a.m. Tuesday to fill the normally sleepy block. Flores already was up in the tree.

Within 90 minutes, more than two dozen people had arrived. They stationed lookouts on the corners. Some went inside Flores’ house through a side door to provide another layer of defense.

1

2

1. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s deputies speak over a fence to Benito Flores on Shelley Street in El Sereno, CA on Tuesday, June 3, 2025. 2. Benito Flores speaks with the media on Tuesday, June 3, 2025 saying that the sheriff’s department that will serve him with eviction lack compassion and that him living on the street will mean facing death.

Gina Viola, an activist and former mayoral candidate, rallied the crowd on the sidewalk. It was “despicable,” she said, to leave homes empty when so many were in need. She said those in power needed to act, just as Flores and the Reclaimers have, to provide permanent housing immediately.

“This is part of a reckoning that is long overdue,” Viola said.

She pointed to the tree house, praising Flores.

“He’s a 70-year-old elder who has climbed … into the sky to make this point to the world: ‘This is my home and I won’t leave it.’”

The structure has been visible from the street for weeks. Flores had attached a sign to the front with a message calling for a citywide rent strike.

The tree house is elaborate. Flores used galvanized steel braces to attach a series of ladders to the ash tree’s trunk. Where the trunk narrowed higher in the tree, Flores bolted spikes into the bark to make the final few steps into the structure.

Inside the tree house and hanging on nearby branches were blankets, warm clothing, food, water and his medication. To keep things clean, there’s a wooden broom he can sweep out leaves and other detritus. Flores expected to charge his phone via an extension cord connected to electricity in the garage. He bolted a chair to the bottom of the tree house and has a safety belt to catch him should he fall.

Deputies had not yet arrived by 9 a.m. Flores descended, wearing a harness, to speak with members of the news media from his driveway. He spoke from behind a locked fence.

Flores rejected the assertion that the Housing Authority has provided him with another place to live. He said the agency’s offers of assistance, such as Section 8 vouchers, aren’t guarantees. He cited the struggles that voucher holders face when finding landlords to accept the subsidies.

“They offered me potential permanent housing,” Flores said of the Housing Authority.

Jenny Scanlin, the agency’s chief strategic development officer, said that Flores was offered more than two dozen referrals to other homes, but that he rejected them. Some involved waiting lists and vouchers, but others had occupancy immediately available, she said.

“We absolutely believe he would have had an alternative place to live — permanent affordable housing” — had Flores accepted the assistance, Scanlin said.

Joseph De La O, 62, seized a Caltrans-owned home in 2020. He accepted a settlement from HACLA and has since returned to homelessness. He came to Flores’ home to help protest the eviction.”

As Flores held court in the driveway, he rolled up a pant leg to show a sore from his diabetes and said that on the streets he’d have nowhere to refrigerate his insulin.

While Flores spoke, supporters were on edge. Representatives of the property management company milled a block away holding drills.

Around 9:45, two sheriff’s cruisers parked a block away. Three deputies got out and met the property managers, then walked to Flores’ home.

Flores’ supporters met them at the driveway. The deputies said they wanted to talk to Flores and brushed past to the locked gate. Flores told them to ask themselves why they needed to evict a senior citizen. The deputies responded that they had offered assistance from adult protective services and were following orders from the court.

A deputy handed Flores a pamphlet describing housing resources the county offered, including information about calling 211. Flores held up the paper above his head to show everyone. The crowd started booing and yelling “Shame.”

An officer then tried to reason with Flores in Spanish. But it was clear things were going nowhere.

“Suerte,” the officer said to Flores. “Good luck.”

Then they left.

The Sheriff’s Department could not immediately be reached for comment, and a Caltrans spokesperson referred comment to the Housing Authority. Scanlin said she expected the lockout process would continue per the court’s order.

Flores and his supporters believe sheriff’s deputies could return at any time. Some are planning to camp out at his house overnight.