Federal prosecutors announced charges Wednesday against 12 people who allegedly engaged in violence during demonstrations against the Trump administration’s immigration policies.
The charges, part of an effort dubbed “Operation Bridge Too Far” by federal authorities, largely centered on demonstrations that erupted on a freeway overpass near an immigration detention center in downtown Los Angeles on June 8, the first day the National Guard was deployed to the city.
What started as a small, peaceful protest on Alameda Street exploded into a series of tense clashes between demonstrators and law enforcement. After National Guard members and U.S. Department of Homeland Security officials used tear gas and smoke bombs to try and disperse a crowd outside the detention center, more protesters flooded the area.
A number of Waymo self-driving vehicles were set on fire near Olivera Street, and a group of California Highway Patrol officers on the 101 Freeway were pelted with items from protesters on the overpass above. At times, they returned fire with less-lethal rounds and tear gas. At least one protester had previously been charged in state court with throwing a flaming item at a CHP vehicle from the overpass.
Authorities announced that 10 defendants charged in connection with the incident were in federal custody this week. Another is in state custody and expected to be handed over to federal authorities, and one remains a fugitive.
Among those charged tied to the June 8 protest are Ronald Alexis Coreas, 23, of Westlake; Junior Roldan, 27, of Hollywood; Elmore Sylvester Cage, 34, of downtown Los Angeles; Balto Montion, 24, of Watsonville; Jesus Gonzalez Hernandez Jr., 22, of Las Vegas; Hector Daniel Ramos, 66, of Alhambra; Stefano Deong Green, 34, of Westmont; Yachua Mauricio Flores, 23, of Lincoln Heights; and Ismael Vega, 41, of Westlake.
Prosecutors also charged Virginia Reyes, 32, and Isai Carrillo, 31, who they say are members of “VC Defensa,” an immigrant rights group that has been documenting raids in the region.
Yovany Marcario Canil, 22, of Boyle Heights, was charged with assault on a federal officer for pepper-spraying members of an FBI S.W.A.T. team who were inside a government vehicle leaving the site of a raid in the downtown L.A. Fashion District on June 6.
A protester lobs a large rock at CHP officers stationed on the 101 Freeway below.
(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)
“Acts of violence against the brave law enforcement officers who protect us are an attack on civilized society itself,” Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said in a news release. “Anyone who engages in such disgusting conduct will face severe consequences from this Department of Justice.”
The FBI offered up to $10,000 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of 10 other unknown individuals accused of engaging in similar attacks from the overpass.
“A group of violent protesters threw rocks, pieces of concrete, electric scooters, and fireworks at officers and patrol cars” on the 101 Freeway, the FBI said.
Bill Essayli, the top federal prosecutor for the Central District of California, has aggressively pursued charges against those who clashed with law enforcement during protests against the Trump administration’s immigration raids over the last few months. On Wednesday, Essayli said that his office has charged 97 people with assaulting or impeding officers.
Of those, Essayli said, 18 have pleaded guilty and 44 are set to go to trial. His office has taken two defendants in misdemeanor assault cases to trial, but both ended in acquittals.
Earlier this year, a Times investigation found Essayli’s prosecutors have failed to convince grand juries to secure indictments in a number of protest-related cases.
Prosecutors face a much lower legal bar before a grand jury than they do in a criminal trial, and experts say it is rare for federal prosecutors to lose at that preliminary stage. Prosecutors in Chicago and Washington have faced similar struggles, court records show.
The defendants who have pleaded guilty in L.A. include a 23-year-old undocumented immigrant who hurled a molotov cocktail at L.A. County sheriff’s deputies during a June rally against immigration enforcement.
A planned increase in federal immigration enforcement in the Bay Area is now on pause throughout the region and in major East Bay cities, not just in San Francisco, Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee said Friday.
Lee said in a statement that Alameda County Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez had “confirmed through her communications” with federal immigration officials that the planned operations were “cancelled for the greater Bay Area — which includes Oakland — at this time.”
The announcement followed lingering concerns about ramped up immigration enforcement among East Bay leaders after President Trump and San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie announced Thursday that a planned “surge” had been called off in San Francisco.
Trump and Lurie had very specifically addressed San Francisco, even as additional Border Patrol agents were being staged across the bay on Coast Guard Island, which is in the waters between Alameda and Oakland.
At a press conference following Trump’s annoucement about San Francisco, Lee had said the situation remained “fluid,” that she had received no such assurances about the East Bay and that Oakland was continuing to prepare for enhanced immigration enforcement in the region.
Alameda County Dist. Atty. Ursula Jones Dickson had previously warned that the announced stand down in San Francisco could be a sign the administration was looking to focus on Oakland instead — and make an example of it.
“We know that they’re baiting Oakland, and that’s why San Francisco, all of a sudden, is off the table,” Jones Dickson said Thursday morning. “So I’m not going to be quiet about what we know is coming. We know that their expectation is that Oakland is going to do something to cause them to make us the example.”
The White House on Friday directed questions about the scope of the pause in operations and whether it applied to the East Bay to the Department of Homeland Security, which referred The Times back to Trump’s statement about San Francisco on Friday — despite its making no mention of the East Bay or Oakland.
In that statement, posted to his Truth Social platform, Trump had written that a “surge” had been planned for San Francisco starting Saturday, but that he had called it off after speaking to Lurie.
Trump said Lurie had asked “very nicely” that Trump “give him a chance to see if he can turn it around” in the city, and that business leaders — including Jensen Huang of Nvidia and Marc Benioff of Salesforce — had expressed confidence in Lurie.
Trump said he told Lurie that it would be “easier” to make San Francisco safer if federal forces were sent in, but told him, “let’s see how you do.”
Lurie in recent days has touted falling crime rates and numbers of homeless encampments in the city, and said in his own announcement of the stand down that he had told Trump that San Francisco was “on the rise” and that “having the military and militarized immigration enforcement in our city will hinder our recovery.”
In California and elsewhere, the Trump administration has aggressively sought to expand the reach and authority of the Border Patrol and federal immigration agents. Last month, the DOJ fired its top prosecutor in Sacramento after she told Gregory Bovino, chief of the Border Patrol’s El Centro Sector, that he could not carry out indiscriminate immigration raids around Sacramento this summer.
In Oakland on Thursday, the planned surge in enforcement had sparked protests near the entrance to Coast Guard Island, and drew widespread condemnation from local liberal officials and immigrant advocacy organizations.
On Thursday night, security officers at the base opened fire on the driver of a U-Haul truck who was reversing the truck toward them, wounding the driver and a civilian nearby. The FBI is investigating that incident.
Some liberal officials had warned that federal agents who violated the rights of Californians could face consequences — even possible arrest — from local law enforcement, which drew condemnation from federal officials.
Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche responded with a scathing letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom and others on Thursday in which he wrote that any attempt by local law enforcement to arrest federal officers doing their jobs would be viewed by the Justice Department as “both illegal and futile” and as part of a “criminal conspiracy.”
Blanche wrote that the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution precludes any federal law enforcement official to be “held on a state criminal charge where the alleged crime arose during the performance of his federal duties,” and that the Justice Department would pursue legal action against any state officials who advocate for such enforcement.
“In the meantime, federal agents and officers will continue to enforce federal law and will not be deterred by the threat of arrest by California authorities who have abdicated their duty to protect their constituents,” Blanche wrote.
The threat of arrest for federal officers had originated in part with San Francisco Dist. Atty. Brooke Jenkins, who had written on social media that if federal agents “come to San Francisco and illegally harass our residents … I will not hesitate to do my job and hold you accountable just like I do other violators of the law every single day.”
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is set to rule for the first time on whether the president has the power to deploy troops in American cities over the objections of local and state officials.
A decision could come at any time.
And even a one-line order siding with President Trump would send the message that he is free to use the military to carry out his orders — and in particular, in Democratic-controlled cities and states.
Trump administration lawyers filed an emergency appeal last week asking the court to reverse judges in Chicago who blocked the deployment of the National Guard there.
The Chicago-based judges said Trump exaggerated the threat faced by federal immigration agents and had equated “protests with riots.”
Trump administration lawyers, however, said these judges had no authority to second-guess the president. The power to deploy the National Guard “is committed to his exclusive discretion by law,” they asserted in their appeal in Trump vs. Illinois.
That broad claim of executive power might win favor with the court’s conservatives.
Administration lawyers told the court that the National Guard would “defend federal personnel, property, and functions in the face of ongoing violence” in response to aggressive immigration enforcement, but it would not carry out ordinary policing.
Yet Trump has repeatedly threatened to send U.S. troops to San Francisco and other Democratic-led cities to carry out ordinary law enforcement.
When he sent 4,000 Guard members and 700 Marines to Los Angeles in June, their mission was to protect federal buildings from protesters. But state officials said troops went beyond that and were used to carry out a show in force in MacArthur Park in July.
Newsom, Bonta warn of dangers
That’s why legal experts and Democratic officials are sounding an alarm.
“Trump v. Illinois is a make-or-break moment for this court,” said Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck, a frequent critic of the court’s pro-Trump emergency orders. “For the Supreme Court to issue a ruling that allows the president to send troops into our cities based upon contrived (or even government-provoked) facts … would be a terrible precedent for the court to set not just for what it would allow President Trump to do now but for even more grossly tyrannical conduct.”
“On June 7, for the first time in our nation’s history, the President invoked [the Militia Act of 1903] to federalize a State’s National Guard over the objections of the State’s Governor. Since that time, it has become clear that the federal government’s actions in Southern California earlier this summer were just the opening salvo in an effort to transform the role of the military in American society,” their brief said.
“At no prior point in our history has the President used the military this way: as his own personal police force, to be deployed for whatever law enforcement missions he deems appropriate. … What the federal government seeks is a standing army, drawn from state militias, deployed at the direction of the President on a nationwide basis, for civilian law enforcement purposes, for an indefinite period of time.”
Conservatives cite civil rights examples
Conservatives counter that Trump is seeking to enforce federal law in the face of strong resistance and non-cooperation at times from local officials.
“Portland and Chicago have seen violent protests outside of federal buildings, attacks on ICE and DHS agents, and organized efforts to block the enforcement of immigration law,” said UC Berkeley law professor John Yoo. “Although local officials have raised cries of a federal ‘occupation’ and ‘dictatorship,’ the Constitution places on the president the duty to ‘take care that the laws are faithfully executed.’”
He noted that presidents in the past “used these same authorities to desegregate southern schools in the 1950s after Brown v. Board of Education and to protect civil rights protesters in the 1960s. Those who cheer those interventions cannot now deny the same constitutional authority when it is exercised by a president they oppose,” he said.
The legal battle so far has sidestepped Trump’s broadest claims of unchecked power, but focused instead on whether he is acting in line with the laws adopted by Congress.
The Constitution gives Congress the power “to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel Invasions.”
Beginning in 1903, Congress said that “the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary” if he faces “danger of invasion by a foreign nation … danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States or the president is unable to execute the laws of the United States.”
While Trump administration lawyers claim he faces a “rebellion,” the legal dispute has focused on whether he is “unable to execute the laws.”
Lower courts have blocked deployments
Federal district judges in Portland and Chicago blocked Trump’s deployments after ruling that protesters had not prevented U.S. immigration agents from doing their jobs.
Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, described the administration’s description of “war-ravaged” Portland as “untethered to the facts.”
In Chicago, Judge April Perry, a Biden appointee, said that “political opposition is not rebellion.”
But the two appeals courts — the 9th Circuit in San Francisco and the 7th Circuit in Chicago — handed down opposite decisions.
A panel of the 9th Circuit said judges must defer to the president’s assessment of the danger faced by immigration agents. Applying that standard, the appeals court by a 2-1 vote said the National Guard deployment in Portland may proceed.
But a panel of the 7th Circuit in Chicago agreed with Perry.
“The facts do not justify the President’s actions in Illinois, even giving substantial deference to his assertions,” they said in a 3-0 ruling last week. “Federal facilities, including the processing facility in Broadview, have remained open despite regular demonstrations against the administration’s immigration policies. And though federal officers have encountered sporadic disruptions, they have been quickly contained by local, state, and federal authorities.”
Attorneys for Illinois and Chicago agreed and urged the court to turn down Trump’s appeal.
“There is no basis for claiming the President is ‘unable’ to ‘execute’ federal law in Illinois,” they said. “Federal facilities in Illinois remain open, the individuals who have violated the law by attacking federal authorities have been arrested, and enforcement of immigration law in Illinois has only increased in recent weeks.”
U.S. Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer, shown at his confirmation hearing in February, said the federal judges in Chicago had no legal or factual basis to block the Trump administration’s deployment of troops.
(Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)
Trump’s Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer presented a dramatically different account in his appeal.
“On October 4, the President determined that the situation in Chicago had become unsustainably dangerous for federal agents, who now risk their lives to carry out basic law enforcement functions,” he wrote. “The President deployed the federalized Guardsmen to Illinois to protect federal officers and federal property.”
He disputed the idea that agents faced just peaceful protests.
“On multiple occasions, federal officers have also been hit and punched by protestors at the Broadview facility. The physical altercations became more significant and the clashes more violent as the size of the crowds swelled throughout September,” Sauer wrote. “Rioters have targeted federal officers with fireworks and have thrown bottles, rocks, and tear gas at them. More than 30 [DHS] officers have been injured during the assaults on federal law enforcement at the Broadview facility alone, resulting in multiple hospitalizations.”
He said the judges in Chicago had no legal or factual basis to block the deployment, and he urged the court to cast aside their rulings.
Marc Benioff has become the latest Silicon Valley tech leader to signal his approval of President Trump, saying that the president is doing a great job and ought to deploy the National Guard to deal with crime in San Francisco.
The Salesforce chief executive’s comments came as he headed to San Francisco to host his annual Dreamforce conference — an event for which he said he had to hire hundreds of off-duty police to provide security.
“We don’t have enough cops, so if they [National Guard] can be cops, I’m all for it,” he told The New York Times from aboard his private plane.
The National Guard is generally not allowed to perform domestic law enforcement duties when federalized by the president.
Last month, a federal judge ruled that Trump’s use of National Guard soldiers in Los Angeles violated the Posse Comitatus Act — which restricts use of the military for domestic law enforcement — and ordered that the troops not be used in law enforcement operations within California.
Trump has also ordered the National Guard to deploy to cities such as Portland, Ore., and Chicago, citing the need to protect federal officers and assets in the face of ongoing immigration protests. Those efforts have been met with criticism from local leaders and are the subject of ongoing legal battles.
President Trump has yet to direct troops to Northern California, but suggested in September that San Francisco could be a target for deployment. He has said that cities with Democratic political leadership such as San Francisco, Chicago and Los Angeles “are very unsafe places and we are going to straighten them out.”
“I told [Defense Secretary] Pete [Hegseth] we should use some of these dangerous cities as training for our military, our national guard,” Trump said.
Benioff’s call to send National Guard troops to San Francisco drew sharp rebukes from several of the region’s elected Democratic leaders.
San Francisco Dist. Atty. Brooke Jenkins said she “can’t be silent any longer” and threatened to prosecute any leaders or troops who harass residents in a fiery statement on X.
“I am responsible for holding criminals accountable, and that includes holding government and law enforcement officials too, when they cross the bounds of the law,” she said. “If you come to San Francisco and illegally harass our residents, use excessive force or cross any other boundaries that the law prescribes, I will not hesitate to do my job and hold you accountable just like I do other violators of the law every single day.”
State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) also took to X to express indignation, saying “we neither need nor want an illegal military occupation in San Francisco.”
“Salesforce is a great San Francisco company that does so much good for our city,” he said. “Inviting Trump to send the National Guard here is not one of those good things. Quite the opposite.”
San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie’s office offered a more muted response, touting the mayor’s efforts to boost public safety in general, but declining to directly address Benioff’s remarks.
Charles Lutvak, a spokesperson for the mayor, noted that the city is seeing net gains in both police officers and sheriff’s deputies for the first time in a decade. He also highlighted Lurie’s efforts to bring police staffing up to 2,000 officers.
“Crime is down nearly 30% citywide and at its lowest point in decades,” Lutvak said. “We are moving in the right direction and will continue to prioritize safety and hiring while San Francisco law enforcement works every single day to keep our city safe.”
When contacted by The Times Friday night, the office of Gov. Gavin Newsom, who vociferously opposed the deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles, did not issue a comment in response to Benioff.
Benioff and Newsom have long been considered friends, with a relationship dating back to when Newsom served as San Francisco’s mayor. Newsom even named Benioff as godfather to one of his children, according to the San Francisco Standard.
Benioff has often referred to himself as an independent. He has donated to several liberal causes, including a $30-million donation to UC San Francisco to study homelessness, and has contributed to prior political campaigns of former President Barack Obama, former Vice President Kamala Harris, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), and Hillary Clinton.
However, he has also donated to the campaigns of former House Speaker Paul Ryan and Sen. John McCain, both Republicans, and supported tougher-on-crime policies and reducing government spending.
Earlier this year, Benioff also praised the Elon Musk-led federal cost-cutting effort known as the Department of Government Efficiency.
“I fully support the president,” Benioff told the New York Times this week. “I think he’s doing a great job.”
PORTLAND, Ore. — A federal judge in Oregon temporarily blocked the Trump administration from deploying the National Guard in Portland, ruling Saturday in a lawsuit brought by the state and city.
U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut issued the order pending further arguments in the case. She said that the relatively small protests the city has seen did not justify the use of federalized forces and that allowing the deployment could harm Oregon’s state sovereignty.
“This country has a longstanding and foundational tradition of resistance to government overreach, especially in the form of military intrusion into civil affairs,” Immergut wrote. She later continued, “This historical tradition boils down to a simple proposition: this is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law.”
State and city officials sued to stop the deployment last week, one day after the Trump administration announced that 200 Oregon National Guard troops would be federalized to protect federal buildings. The president called the city “war-ravaged.”
Oregon officials said that characterization was ludicrous. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in the city has been the site of nightly protests that typically drew a couple dozen people in recent weeks before the deployment was announced.
Generally speaking the president is allowed “a great level of deference” to federalize National Guard troops in situations where regular law enforcement forces are not able to execute the laws of the United States, the judge said, but that has not been the case in Portland.
Plaintiffs were able to show that the demonstrations at the immigration building were not significantly violent or disruptive ahead of the president’s order, the judge wrote, and “overall, the protests were small and uneventful.”
“The President’s determination was simply untethered to the facts,” Immergut wrote.
After the ruling, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said that “President Trump exercised his lawful authority to protect federal assets and personnel in Portland following violent riots and attacks on law enforcement — we expect to be vindicated by a higher court.”
Trump has deployed or threatened to deploy troops in several U.S. cities, particularly ones led by Democrats, including Los Angeles, Washington, Chicago and Memphis, Tenn. Speaking Tuesday to U.S. military leaders in Virginia, he proposed using cities as training grounds for the armed forces, alarming many military analysts.
Last month a federal judge ruled that the president’s deployment of some 4,700 National Guard soldiers and Marines in Los Angeles this year was illegal, but he allowed the 300 who remain in the city to stay as long as they do not enforce civilian laws. The Trump administration appealed, and an appellate panel has put the lower court’s block on hold while it moves forward.
The Portland protests have been limited to a one-block area in a city that covers about 145 square miles and has about 636,000 residents.
The protests grew somewhat following the Sept. 28 announcement of the Guard deployment. The Portland Police Bureau, which has said it does not participate in immigration enforcement and intervenes in the protests only if there is vandalism or criminal activity, arrested two people on assault charges. A peaceful march earlier that day drew thousands to downtown and saw no arrests, police said.
On Saturday, before the ruling was released, roughly 400 people marched to the ICE facility. The crowd included people of all ages and races, families with children and older people using walkers. Federal agents responded with chemical crowd-control munitions, including tear gas canisters and less-lethal guns that sprayed pepper balls. At least six people were arrested as the protesters reached the ICE building.
During his first term, Trump sent federal officers to Portland over the objections of local and state leaders in 2020 during long-running racial justice protests after George Floyd’s murder by Minneapolis police. The administration sent hundreds of agents for the stated purpose of protecting the federal courthouse and other federal property from vandalism.
That deployment antagonized demonstrators and prompted nightly clashes. Federal officers fired rubber bullets and used tear gas.
Viral videos captured federal officers arresting people and hustling them into unmarked vehicles. A report by the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general found that while the federal government had legal authority to deploy the officers, many of them lacked the training and equipment necessary for the mission.
The government agreed this year to settle an excessive-force lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union by compensating several plaintiffs for their injuries.
Rush and Boone write for the Associated Press and reported from Portland and Boise, Idaho, respectively. AP writer Josh Boak in Washington contributed to this report.
George Retes Jr. grew up in Southern California, and when he turned 18, he decided to serve in the U.S. Army, he said, because he wanted to be part of something bigger than himself.
After a tour of duty in Iraq, Retes moved back to Ventura County this year to find a job and spend more time with his wife and two young children. In February, he began working as a contracted security guard for Glass House Farms at its cannabis greenhouses in Camarillo. Then, on July 10, everything changed as ICE raided Glass House — one of its largest immigration raids ever — while he was trying to get to work.
Federal officers surrounded Retes and pushed him to the ground. He could hardly breathe, he said, as officers knelt on his back and neck. He was arrested, jailed for three days and was not allowed to make a phone call or see an attorney, according to the Institute for Justice, a public-interest law firm that is representing him.
President Trump’s Department of Homeland Security never charged Retes with a crime. But after he wrote an op-ed about his experience this month, DHS started issuing new accusations against him — saying he was arrested for assault during the raid, which the 25-year-old veteran has denied. Retes said he never resisted, and now is being targeted for retaliation because he spoke out about an arrest he sees as unlawful.
“My whole point in sharing my story, I’m trying to warn as many people as possible,” he said in an interview this week. “It doesn’t matter if you’re [politically] left, right, if you voted for Trump, hate him, love him, it doesn’t matter. This affects all of us.”
On July 10, Retes was headed to work around 2 p.m., and the narrow road leading to the farm was logjammed, he said. He weaved his compact white Hyundai forward, past parked cars and protesters, determined to make it to his shift.
He stopped short when he came upon a line of federal officers who blocked his path to the farm. Retes, 25, wearing shorts and a hoodie, got out of his car and tried to tell the federal agents that he worked at the farm.
Agents ignored him, he said, and instead told him to get out of the way. So he got back in his car, and as he tried to back up, agents began lobbing tear gas canisters toward the crowd to disperse them. Retes began hacking and coughing as the gas seeped into his car and federal officers began pounding on his car door. He said they gave him instructions to move that were contradictory.
The agents smashed his car window, pepper sprayed him, pulled him out of the car and arrested him, he said. He was handcuffed, and after his three days in jail, he was released without any explanation.
In his Sept. 16 opinion piece for the San Francisco Chronicle — entitled “I’m a U.S. citizen who was wrongly arrested and held by ICE. Here’s why you could be next” — Retes detailed his ordeal. He has begun to take legal action to sue the U.S. government under the Federal Tort Claims Act. More than 360 people were arrested in the raid, including numerous undocumented immigrants, and one person died.
“I served my country. I wore the uniform, I stood watch, and I believe in the values we say make us different. And yet here, on our own soil, I was wrongfully detained,” he wrote. “Stripped of my rights, treated like I didn’t belong and locked away — all as an American citizen and a veteran … if it can happen to me, it can happen to any one of us.”
Homeland Security officials did not respond to a request for comment or answer questions about their claim of assault.
Previously, an unnamed spokesperson for Homeland Security said he was released without a charge, and his case was being reviewed, along with others, “for potential federal charges related to the execution of the federal search warrant in Camarillo.”
A day after Retes’ opinion piece was published, the agency said Retes “became violent and refused to comply with law enforcement. He challenged agents and blocked their route by refusing to move his vehicle out of the road. CBP arrested Retes for assault.”
The agency denied that U.S. citizens were being wrongfully arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The post stated that operations were “highly targeted.”
“This kind of garbage has led to a more than 1000% increase in the assaults on enforcement officers,” the agency said.
Retes said he was astounded to learn the agency’s latest claims about July 10 — moments that were captured on video. He says DHS officials are lying.
“I was in shock,” he said. The agency had “an opportunity to say ‘OK, what we did was wrong, we’ll take responsibility.’ … It’s crazy that they’re willing to stand 10 toes down and die on a hill of lying and say I assaulted officers.”
Anya Bidwell, his attorney and senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, said it is significant that the government chose to respond only after his piece was published.
“When people in this country stand up to this government, this government responds with fury,” Bidwell said. “They’re trying to impose their own version of reality. It’s so important for people like George to say, ‘I know who I am and I know what happened to me, you can’t just frame it as something that it’s not.’”
In an aerial video that captured the initial confrontation, Retes is seen driving up to the line of agents. He steps outside of his car and remains by the driver side as he tries to reason with the agents. About 20 seconds later, he gets back in his car as the agents press forward. Within seconds they surround his car, at the same time pressing protesters back as they begin to lob tear gas canisters.
Inside his car, Retes starts to record on his phone. He’s backing up slowly, at an angle, until tear gas makes difficult to see where he’s going, he said.
“I’m trying to leave!” he says as agents bang on his car. There’s a loud crack as they break his car glass window. “OK I’m sorry!”
The agents pepper-spray him and detain him. One video posted online shows a group of agents surrounding Retes, who is face down on the road. Another agent hops in his car and drives it forward and off to the side of the road.
Retes said one agent knelt on his neck and another on his back. He was taken to the Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles, and he was kept in a cell with a protester who was also arrested. While in jail, he said, he missed his daughter’s third birthday.
After he was released, Retes said he was suspended from his job without pay for two weeks because of the arrest, and when he came back, his regular shifts were no longer available. Staying on would make it difficult to see his family, so he had to leave, he said.
He also had to spend about $1,200 getting his car window fixed and detailed from the tear gas, he said.
Despite the Trump administration’s actions, Retes said his faith in the government and accountability for justice remains steady. Just like when he joined the Army, he said, he still hangs on to a sense of unity to stand up for the country’s values.
“I still believe justice can be restored — that’s why I’m standing up and speaking out,” he said. “I think it’s important now more than ever for us to be unified and standing up for our rights together. Especially when they have the audacity to try to lie, especially to the public.”
The California Legislature on Thursday passed a pair of bills to prohibit on-duty law enforcement officers, including federal immigration agents, from masking their faces and to require them to identify themselves.
Senate Bill 627, written by Sens. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and Jesse Arreguín (D-Berkeley), includes exceptions for SWAT teams and others. The measure was introduced after the Trump administration ordered immigration raids throughout the Los Angeles area earlier this year.
Federal officers in army-green neck gaiters or other face coverings have jumped out of vans and cars to detain individuals across California this summer as part of President Trump’s mass deportation program, prompting a wave of criticism from Democratic leaders.
Representatives for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security defend the face coverings, arguing that identifying officers subjects to them to retaliation and violence.
If supported by Gov. Gavin Newsom, the law would apply to local and federal officers, but not state officers such as California Highway Patrol officers. Wiener, when asked about that exemption on the Senate floor, declined to elaborate.
Leaders in Los Angeles County are exploring a similar measure to ban masks despite some legal experts’ view that the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution dictates that federal law takes precedence over state law.
The bill’s backers argue that permitting officers to disguise themselves creates scenarios where impostors may stop and detain migrants, which undermines public trust and ultimately hinders legitimate law enforcement operations.
“The idea that in California we would have law enforcement officers running around with ski masks is terrifying,” Wiener said in a brief interview. “It destroys confidence in law enforcement.”
Wiener’s bill allows exceptions for masks, including for undercover officers. Medical coverings are also allowed. .
Senate Bill 805, a measure by Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez (D-Alhambra) that targets immigration officers who are in plainclothes but don’t identify themselves, also passed the state Legislature on Thursday.
Her bill requires law enforcement officers in plain clothes to display their agency, as well as either a badge number or name, with some exemptions.
Francisco Longoria, a San Bernardino man who was driving his truck when a masked U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer shot at it, has been arrested and charged by federal authorities. They allege he assaulted immigration officers during the incident.
In a statement, Longoria’s attorneys said Homeland Security Investigations agents arrived at the Longoria household at 4:18 a.m. Thursday, with an armored personnel carrier, a type of military vehicle, and deployed more than a dozen “fully armed and armored” agents to swarm the home, breaking the locks on his gate. An agent called out to Longoria to come out, using a bullhorn, as agents stood at each door and pointed their rifles at the door and at the occupants inside, the attorneys said.
“These are the type of tactics reserved for dangerous criminals such as violent gang members, drug lords, and terrorists,” the attorneys said. “It was clearly intended to intimidate and punish Mr. Longoria and his family for daring to speak out about their attempted murder by ICE and CBP agents on August 16th.”
On that day, federal immigration officers stopped Longoria in San Bernardino. During the encounter, Longoria, who was in his truck with his 18-year-old son and 23-year-old son-in-law, feared for his safety and drove off after masked officers shattered his car window, his attorneys said.
Department of Homeland Security officials have said officers were injured during the encounter when Longoria tried to “run them down.” Longoria’s attorneys dispute their client injured the officers or attempted to hit them, and earlier this week they called for an investigation of the shooting.
On Friday morning, the U.S. attorney’s office confirmed that Homeland Security Investigations agents arrested Longoria the day before. Word of his arrest was earlier reported by the San Bernardino Sun.
Ciaran McEvoy, spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles, said Longoria made an initial appearance before a U.S. District Court judge in Riverside, and is set to be arraigned on Sept. 30. The federal magistrate judge ordered him released on a $5,000 bond.
Longoria was being held at the San Bernardino County jail, in custody of the U.S. Marshals Service, as of Thursday afternoon, McEvoy said in an email.
“Since Longoria is an illegal alien, ICE has a detainer on him,” he said. Longoria’s attorneys said their client was transferred into Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody as of Friday.
An unnamed Department of Homeland Security spokesperson confirmed federal agents arrested Longoria at his home.
“CBP and ICE remain committed to enforcing the law, protecting officers, and keeping dangerous criminals off America’s streets — even as local officials in California undermine those efforts,” the official said.
According to a criminal complaint submitted by a Homeland Security Investigations agent, whose name is redacted, Longoria is facing a charge of assault on a federal officer with a deadly/dangerous weapon.
In the complaint, the agent, who interviewed the officers who stopped Longoria, said the officers had stopped Longoria’s GMC pickup truck to conduct “an immigration check.” Two of them were ICE officers and the other two were CBP officers.
The complaint states that the officers were identifiable by their visible clothing marked with “police.”
After they stopped Longoria’s truck, the complaint states, he refused to comply with the demands to turn off his vehicle and roll down the window. One of the CBP officers, identified as J.C., decided to break the window after Longoria refused the commands, and was allegedly struck by the driver’s door on his left elbow and left calf. The passenger side window was also shattered by agents during the encounter.
Another CBP officer was allegedly struck by the front bumper/fender of the truck on his right leg. “The Truck kept pushing Officer S.T., and Officer S.T. shot at the Truck, afraid for his life,” according to the complaint.
Longoria’s attorneys had previously released surveillance video of the incident, which appears to dispute a key claim by Homeland Security — that Longoria drove his truck toward officers and injured them.
In the surveillance video, the moment Longoria drives away, officers on both sides of the truck remain in sight of the video, and they then pile into their vehicles and pursue Longoria’s truck down a side street.
After Longoria drove off, the family called 911. While San Bernardino police were questioning Longoria, the immigration officers arrived, and family members identified the one they believed had shot at the truck.
At the initial court appearance, the judge questioned the assistant U.S. attorney prosecuting the case, Cory Burleson, about the government’s claim that it was conducting an “immigration check,” a term he couldn’t clarify when asked by the court, according to Longoria’s attorneys. Burleson also claimed Longoria was stopped due to a traffic violation, but couldn’t identify the violation, his attorneys said. When the judge asked Burleson to identify the alleged injuries of the officers, Burleson said he was “not aware of any injuries,” Longoria’s attorneys said.
Longoria’s attorneys said their client was granted bond, but because of the ICE hold, has since been transferred into ICE custody, which they believe is the “true purpose of this false and baseless charge.”
“No reasonable prosecutor could believe that a conviction would be secured against Mr. Longoria for the August 16th stop, when every video supports Mr. Longoria’s version of events and directly contradicts DHS’ story,” his attorneys said. “Yet [the Department of Justice] will not drop the charges; it has been their practice during this Administration to pursue charges based on unsubstantiated and false affidavits in order to arrest individuals and then turn them over to ICE.”
His attorneys said they intend to continue advocating for Longoria, his son and son-in-law.
“We are in contact with local and State authorities and are encouraging a state investigation and criminal charges against the ICE/CBP agents,” the attorneys said.
This article is part of The Times’ equity reporting initiative,funded by the James Irvine Foundation, exploring the challenges facing low-income workers and the efforts being made to addressCalifornia’s economic divide.
A former Walmart employee who tried to intervene as Border Patrol agents arrested an undocumented custodial worker in Pico Rivera in June was indicted by a federal grand jury Wednesday.
Adrian Martinez, 20, was indicted by a Santa Ana jury on the charge of conspiracy to impede a federal officer tied to the events of June 17, which unfolded at the height of the Trump administration’s immigration raids in the Los Angeles area. Martinez’s violent arrest was caught on video and quickly went viral.
According to the three-page indictment, Martinez confronted Border Patrol agents as they tried to arrest the custodial worker in the parking lot of a shopping center and blocked the agents’ vehicle with his own. Prosecutors allege that he positioned himself with a growing crowd to surround the agents’ vehicle and prevent it from leaving the area.
Martinez then allegedly grabbed a large trash can and moved it in front of the agents’ vehicle, blocking them from being able to pass.
According to the U.S. attorney’s office in L.A., Martinez faces up to six years in prison if convicted. He is set to be arraigned in downtown L.A. on Thursday.
“Make no mistake: There are serious, life-altering consequences for impeding law enforcement,” acting U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli said in a news release Wednesday.
Martinez’s lawyers released a statement noting that “just as in other cases arising out of recent illegal and inhumane ICE raids, the U.S. Attorney’s Office had to travel out of Los Angeles county to secure this indictment.”
The Times previously reported on Essayli’s struggles to secure indictments in protest cases.
“Although we are disappointed that Adrian’s case has not been dismissed, we always anticipated being required to litigate this case post-indictment,” the Miller Law Group, which represents Martinez, said in its statement.
The lawyers also criticized Essayli for posting on X, “before we had even officially been notified of the outcome of the indictment” and using it “to maliciously spread falsehoods and fearmonger at our client’s expense.”
In a June interview with the Times, Martinez said he was on break when he spotted the custodial worker, “getting grabbed very aggressively, getting manhandled,” by the agents. Martinez said he drove over, told the agents that their actions weren’t right and they should leave the worker alone.
Surveillance and spectator video captured at the scene and looped in social media feeds show an agent rushing Martinez and shoving him to the ground. Martinez gets back up, there is more shoving, and he exchanges angry words with a masked officer carrying a rifle. Then other agents swarmed him, pushed him back down and dragged him to their truck.
Share via
Agents ultimately arrested both the custodial worker and Martinez.
In the June interview with the Times, Martinez said after his arrest he was taken to a parking structure, where he was told he’d been arrested for assaulting a federal officer by striking an agent in the face and breaking his glasses. Martinez, who weighs around 150 pounds, said the agents arresting him pointed to the colleague he was being accused of attacking, who looked “like a grizzly bear.”
“I don’t even remember you,” Martinez recalled saying. “It just seemed like they were trying to get me to say like, ‘yes, you assaulted him,’ but I knew I didn’t.”
The next day, Essayli posted a photo on X of Martinez, still in his blue Walmart vest. Martinez, he wrote, had been arrested “for an allegation of punching a border patrol agent in the face.”
Martinez was charged in a June 19 criminal complaint with conspiracy to impede a federal officer. The complaint makes no reference to a punch and neither does Wednesday’s indictment.
Bloomberg Law previously reported that Essayli had rejected office supervisors’ advice not to charge Martinez for assaulting a federal officer and that an an FBI agent felt there was insufficient evidence and declined to sign a complaint attesting probable cause to a judge.
Within a day, the outlet reported, another agent signed off on the charge of conspiracy to impede.
In an interview a week after his arrest, Martinez wore a brace on his right leg, where he’d suffered a contusion, and said he’d been bruised and scratched all over his body.
Walmart later terminated Martinez, citing “gross misconduct,” according to a separation notice reviewed by the Times.
“I was just speaking up for a man,” Martinez said. “How can I go from that to this?”
“People have the right to speak up for themselves and for someone else,” he added. “You don’t have to get treated like this, thrown on the floor and manhandled because of that.”
WASHINGTON — As a wary Washington waited, the White House promised a ramp-up of National Guard troops and federal officers on the streets of the nation’s capital around the clock starting Wednesday, days after President Trump’s unprecedented announcement that his administration would take over the city’s police department for at least a month.
The city’s Democratic mayor and police chief framed the influx as a plus for public safety, though they said there are few hard measures for what a successful end to the operation might look like. The Republican president has said crime in the city was at emergency levels that only such federal intervention could fix even as District of Columbia leaders pointed to statistics showing violent crime at a 30-year low after a sharp rise two years ago.
For two days, small groups of federal officers have been visible in scattered areas of the city. That is about to change, the administration says.
A “significantly higher” presence of guard members was expected Wednesday night, and federal agents will be out 24/7 rather than largely at night, according to the White House. Hundreds of federal law enforcement and city police officers who patrolled the streets Tuesday night made 43 arrests, compared with about two dozen the night before.
In one neighborhood, officers from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the FBI could be seen along with the U.S. Park Police searching the car of a motorist parked just outside a legal parking area to eat takeout and drop off a friend. Two blocks away, U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers gathered in a parking lot before driving off on patrol.
In other parts of the city, including those with popular nightlife hot spots, federal patrols were harder to find. At the National Mall, there was little law enforcement activity aside from Park Police cruisers pulling over a taxi driver near the Washington Monument.
A variety of infractions are targeted
The arrests made by 1,450 federal and local officers across the city included those for suspicion of driving under the influence, unlawful entry, as well as a warrant for assault with a deadly weapon, according to the White House. Seven illegal firearms were seized.
Unlike in other U.S. states and cities, the law gives Trump the power to take over Washington’s police for up to a month. Extending Trump’s power over the city for longer would require approval from Congress, and that could be tough in the face of Democratic resistance.
The president has full command of the National Guard, but as of Tuesday evening, guard members had yet to be assigned a specific mission, according to an official who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity. As many as 800 troops were expected to be mobilized in a support role to law enforcement, though exactly what form remains to be determined.
The push also includes clearing out encampments for people who are homeless, Trump has said. U.S. Park Police have removed dozens of tents since March, and plan to take out two more this week, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has said. People are offered the chance to go to shelters and get addiction treatment, if needed, but those who refuse could be fined or jailed, she said.
City officials said they are making more shelter space available and increasing their outreach.
Violent crime has dropped in the district
The federal effort comes even after a drop in violent crime in the nation’s capital, a trend that experts have seen in cities across the U.S. since an increase during the coronavirus pandemic.
On average, the level of violence in Washington remains mostly higher than averages in three dozen cities analyzed by the nonprofit Council on Criminal Justice, said the group’s president and CEO, Adam Gelb.
Police Chief Pamela Smith said during an interview with the local Fox affiliate that the city’s Metro Police Department has been down nearly 800 officers. She said the increased number of federal agents on the streets would help fill that gap, at least for now.
Mayor Muriel Bowser said city officials did not get any specific goals for the surge during a meeting with Trump’s attorney general, Pam Bondi, and other top federal law enforcement officials Tuesday. But, she said, “I think they regard it as a success to have more presence and take more guns off the street, and we do too.”
She had previously called Trump’s moves “unsettling and unprecedented” while pointing out he was within a president’s legal rights regarding the district, which is the seat of American government but is not a state.
For some residents, the increased presence of law enforcement and National Guard troops is nerve-racking.
“I’ve seen them right here at the subway … they had my street where I live at blocked off yesterday, actually,” Washington native Sheina Taylor said. “It’s more fearful now because even though you’re a law-abiding citizen, here in D.C., you don’t know, especially because I’m African American.”
Whitehurst and Khalil write for the Associated Press. AP writers Konstantin Toropin and Will Weissert, photographer Jacquelyn Martin and video journalist River Zhang contributed to this report.
To bystanders at the federal courthouse in downtown Los Angeles, it sounded as though U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli would not take no for an answer.
A prosecutor had the irate Trump administration appointee on speaker phone outside the grand jury room, and his screaming was audible, according to three law enforcement officials aware of the encounter who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.
The grand jury had just refused to indict someone accused of attacking federal law enforcement officers during protests against the recent immigration raids throughout Southern California, two of the officials said.
It was an exceedingly rare outcome after a type of hearing that routinely leads to federal charges being filed.
On the overheard call, according to three officials, Essayli, 39, told a subordinate to disregard the federal government’s “Justice Manual,” which directs prosecutors to only bring cases they can win at trial. Essayli barked that prosecutors should press on and secure indictments as directed by U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, according to three officials.
Court records show the reason for Essayli’s frustration.
While his office has filed felony cases against at least 38 people for alleged misconduct that either took place during last month’s protests or near the sites of immigration raids, many have already been dismissed or reduced to misdemeanor charges.
The three officials who spoke to The Times on the condition of anonymity said prosecutors have struggled to get several protest-related cases past grand juries, which need only to find probable cause that a crime has been committed in order to move forward. That is a much lower bar than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard required for a criminal conviction.
Five cases have been dismissed without prejudice — meaning they could be refiled — and records show nine have been filed as misdemeanors, which do not require a grand jury indictment to proceed. In some cases, prosecutors reduced charges against defendants to misdemeanors after repeatedly falling short at the grand jury stage, according to three federal law enforcement officials.
Essayli declined to be interviewed for this article. A statement provided by his office on Tuesday accused The Times of spreading “factual inaccuracies and anonymous gossip,” but offered no specifics or further comment in response to questions.
“The U.S. Attorney’s Office will continue working unapologetically to charge all those who assault our agents or impede our federal investigations,” the statement said.
Legal experts said Essayli’s low number of indictments raised concerns about the strength of the cases he is filing.
Carley Palmer, a former federal prosecutor in L.A. who is now a partner at Halpern May Ybarra Gelberg, said the grand jury’s repeated rejection of cases was “a strong indication that the priorities of the prosecutor’s office are out of sync with the priorities of the general community.”
Essayli has won indictments in some serious cases, including two where defendants are accused of throwing or planning to throw Molotov cocktails at L.A. law enforcement officers, and a case where defendants allegedly fired a paintball gun at federal police. But in total, he has only secured seven indictments, which usually need to be obtained no later than 21 days after the filing of a criminal complaint. Three other cases have been resolved via plea deal, records show.
High-ranking Justice Department officials have repeatedly praised his work.
“My friend, U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli, is a champion for law and order who has done superlative work to prosecute rioters for attacking and obstructing law enforcement in Los Angeles,” Bondi said in a statement to The Times.
Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi speaks during a news conference at the Justice Department on June 6 in Washington.
(Julia Demaree Nikhinson / Associated Press)
But legal experts and some of Essayli’s own prosecutors say he’s stretching legal limits to serve as Trump’s attack dog in L.A.
“It’s just generally a culture of ‘if Bill asks you to jump, you ask how high,’” said one prosecutor who feared retaliation. “Any case he wants to charge, find a way to make it a yes.”
Questions about Essayli’s effectiveness come at a critical time for the former California Assembly member. Bondi appointed him in early April, giving him 120 days to serve as interim U.S. attorney until receiving Senate approval. If he is not confirmed by then, a panel of federal judges will have the opportunity to appoint him — or someone else — to the position.
Democratic Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla of California raised concerns about Essayli’s leadership of the office in interviews with The Times, and a direct approval from the bench is no sure thing. Earlier this month, a federal judicial panel blocked Trump’s choice for U.S. attorney in upstate New York after the time limit for Senate confirmation had expired.
On Tuesday, another judicial panel declined to appoint New Jersey’s interim federal prosecutor, Alina Habba, one of Trump’s former personal lawyers. Bondi, however, decried the judges for going “rogue,” fired their choice for U.S. attorney and reappointed Habba. Legal experts say the move is unprecedented.
Meghan Blanco, a former federal prosecutor in L.A. who serves as defense counsel to one of the protesters who is facing charges, said the cases are faltering in part because of unreliable information provided by immigration agents claiming to be victims.
“Frankly, they’re not deserving of prosecution,” she said. “What is being alleged isn’t a federal crime, or it simply did not happen.”
Blanco represents Jose Mojica, who was accused of pushing a federal officer in Paramount on June 7.
According to an investigation summary of the incident reviewed by The Times, a U.S. Border Patrol officer claimed a man was screaming in his face that he was going to “shoot him,” then punched him. The officer said he and other agents started chasing the man, but were “stopped by two other males,” later identified as Mojica and Bryan Ramos-Brito.
Blanco said she obtained social media videos showing no such chase took place and presented them at Mojica’s first court appearance. The charges were soon dropped.
“The agent lied and said he was in hot pursuit of a person who punched him,” Blanco said. “The entirety of the affidavit is false.”
Felony charges against Ramos-Brito and two related defendants, Ashley and Joceline Rodriguez, were also dismissed, though prosecutors refiled misdemeanor cases against them.
Christian Camacho-Cerna, the man who allegedly punched an agent, has been indicted. He has pleaded not guilty, with trial set for next month.
Similar issues arose in the case of Andrea Velez, who was charged on June 25 with assaulting a federal officer. The criminal complaint alleged Velez, who is 4 feet 11 inches, stood in the path of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer with her arms extended, striking his head and chest when they collided.
Diane Bass, Velez’s attorney, said the incident occurred when masked, unidentified men in plainclothes pulled up to question a downtown L.A. street vendor.
Velez had just been dropped off for work when some of the masked men ran at her and one shoved her to the ground, Bass said. Velez, fearing she was being abducted, held up her work bag to shield herself.
Bass requested body-worn camera footage and witness statements cited in the complaint. Soon after, she said, the prosecutor dismissed the case.
One federal law enforcement official not authorized to speak publicly said concerns are growing among prosecutors about the accuracy of statements by federal immigration agents that serve as the basis of criminal charges.
“There are a lot of hot-headed [Customs and Border Protection] officers who are kind of arresting first and asking questions later. We’re finding there’s not probable cause to support it,” said the prosecutor who requested anonymity over concerns of repercussions.
A demonstrator waves a Mexican flag in front of a dumpster fire after another night of unrest during a protest against immigration raids on June 8, 2025 in Los Angeles, California.
(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)
One case under close scrutiny is that of Adrian Martinez, a 20-year-old charged in a criminal complaint last month with conspiracy to impede a federal officer.
Martinez said he was on a break from his job at Walmart when he spotted immigration agents chasing down a maintenance worker, and told them to leave the man alone.
Video footage shows Martinez being thrown to the ground and shoved into a truck, which he said took him to a parking structure.
Once there, Martinez said he was told he’d been arrested for assaulting a federal officer by striking an agent in the face and breaking his glasses. Martinez, who weighs around 150 pounds, said the agents arresting him pointed to the colleague he was being accused of attacking, who looked “like a grizzly bear.”
“I don’t even remember you,” Martinez recalled saying. “It just seemed like they were trying to get me to say like, ‘yes, you assaulted him,’ but I knew I didn’t.”
The next day, Essayli posted a photo on X of Martinez, still in his blue Walmart vest. Martinez, he wrote, had been arrested “for an allegation of punching a border patrol agent in the face.”
The criminal complaint makes no reference to a punch and video taken at the scene does not clearly show Martinez strike anyone. Federal prosecutors instead charged Martinez with conspiracy to impede a federal officer, alleging he blocked federal law enforcement vehicles with his car and then later a trash can.
Ciaran McEvoy, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office, previously told The Times that complaints do not always include “the full scope of a defendant’s conduct, or the evidence that will be presented at trial.”
A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said the agency could not comment on cases under active litigation.
“Our officers are facing a surge in assaults and attacks against them as they put their lives on the line to enforce our nation’s laws,” the DHS statement said.
Charges against nonviolent defendants have repeatedly raised alarm bells among current and former federal prosecutors. In early June, union leader David Huerta was charged with conspiracy to impede a federal officer for allegedly interfering with immigration enforcement actions in the downtown L.A. garment district. Legal experts said Huerta’s conduct did not appear criminal.
“Where do you draw the line between an organized protest and a conspiracy to impede?” Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor and professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, asked last month. “It’ll actually be interesting to see if a grand jury indicts these cases.”
Huerta has denied all wrongdoing and his attorney did not respond to a request for comment. A deadline of Aug. 5 looms for prosecutors to secure an indictment.
Court filings show some prosecutors appear to be refusing to sign their names to contentious cases.
An indictment returned against Alejandro Orellana — who is accused of conspiracy and aiding in civil disorder for passing out gas masks at a protest scene in early June — was only signed by Essayli and his second-in-command, Jennifer Waier, records show. Such cases are typically handled by rank-and-file assistant U.S. attorneys.
