granted

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday vetoed legislation that would have allowed public and private colleges to provide preferential admissions to applicants directly descended from individuals who were enslaved in the United States before 1900.

The governor thanked the bill’s author for his commitment to addressing disparities and urged educational institutions to review and determine “how, when, and if this type of preference can be adopted.”

“This bill clarifies, to the extent permitted by federal law, that California public and private postsecondary educational institutions may consider providing a preference in admissions to an applicant who is a descendant of slavery,” Newsom wrote Monday in his veto. “These institutions already have the authority to determine whether to provide admissions preferences like this one, and accordingly, this bill is unnecessary.”

The legislation would not have required applicants to belong to any particular race or ethnicity — a crucial detail that proponents said distinguished it from affirmative action, which is banned at California colleges. Critics, however, argued the term “slave” was used as a proxy for race.

Legal experts told The Times last month the measure probably would have faced challenges in court if the governor signed it into law.

“The question with this sort of provision is does this count as on the basis of race?” said Ralph Richard Banks, professor at Stanford Law School and the founder and faculty director of the Stanford Center for Racial Justice. “A secondary issue is going to be whether, even if it is not formally about racial classification, was it really adopted to get around the no-racial-classification rule? The law prohibits indirect methods of doing something that would be prohibited if you were to do it directly.”

Race-based college admissions are banned by federal and state law.

Proposition 209, which California voters approved nearly three decades ago, amended the state Constitution to bar colleges from considering race, sex, national origin or ethnicity during admissions. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2023 in effect ended race-conscious college admissions nationwide, ruling in Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard that such policies violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

California became the first state government in the country to study reparations, efforts to remedy the lingering effects of slavery and systemic racism, after the 2020 killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer sparked a national conversation on racial justice.

Newsom and state lawmakers passed a law to create a “first in the nation” task force to study and propose effective ways to help atone for the legacy of slavery. That panel spent years working on a 1,080-page report on the effects of slavery and the discriminatory policies sanctioned by the government after slavery was abolished, and the findings became the genesis for a slate of legislation proposed by the California Legislative Black Caucus.

Last week, Newsom signed Senate Bill 518, which will create a new office called the Bureau for Descendants of American Slavery. That bureau will create a process to determine whether someone is the descendant of a slave and to certify someone’s claim to help them access benefits.

Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (D-Los Angeles), who introduced Assembly Bill 7, said his legislation would have allowed colleges to grant preference to the descendants of enslaved people in order to rectify a “legacy of exclusion, of harm.”

Andrew Quinio, an attorney specializing in equality issues for the Pacific Legal Foundation, believes AB 7 was blatantly unconstitutional. The foundation is a conservative public interest law firm that seeks to prevent government overreach.

“This was a bill that was born out of the Reparations Task Force recommendations; it was part of the package of bills of the Road to Repair from the California Legislative Black Caucus so this has a very clear racial intent and racial purpose and it will have a racial effect,” he said. “[Legislation] doesn’t have to benefit the entirety or even the majority of a demographic in order for it to be unlawfully based on race.”

Lisa Holder, a civil rights attorney and president of the Equal Justice Society, a progressive nonprofit that works to protect policies that promote diversity, argued the measure’s framing made it highly likely to satisfy legal challenges.

“This (legislation) is very specifically tailored to correct the harms that we have seen, the harms from the past that continue into the present,” she said. “… Because this bill seeks to erase those harms by focusing specifically on the descendant community, it is strong enough to establish a compelling interest.”

Gary Orfield, a law and education professor and co-founder of the Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles at UCLA, agreed the legislation was carefully written in a way that could have withstood legal challenges. He pointed out California allows university programs that support Native American students because they were narrowly tailored to focus on tribal affiliation — which is considered a political classification — instead of race or ethnicity.

Orfield said applicants of various races could have potentially benefited from the new admissions policy, as many Native Americans were enslaved and Asiatic coolieism, or Asian indentured servitude, was declared a form of human slavery in the state constitution in 1879.

“All Black people weren’t slaves and all slaves were not Black,” he said. “I think there is a good argument to say that slavery isn’t defined strictly by race and is not just a proxy for race and there certainly is a legitimate concern when you are thinking about remediation for historic violations.”

Orfield, however, said convincing the public was a different matter.

“I don’t think all people will easily understand this,” he said. “Americans tend to think that discrimination doesn’t cross over multiple generations. But I think that it does — I think there has been a long-lasting effect.”

Staff writer Melody Gutierrez contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has ruled for a second time that the Trump administration may cancel the “temporary protected status” given to about 600,000 Venezuelans under the Biden administration.

The move, advocates for the Venezuelans said, means thousands of lawfully present individuals could lose their jobs, be detained in immigration facilities and deported to a country that the U.S. government considers unsafe to visit.

The high court granted an emergency appeal from Trump’s lawyers and set aside decisions of U.S. District Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

“Although the posture of the case has changed, the parties’ legal arguments and relative harms generally have not. The same result that we reached in May is appropriate here,” the court said in an unsigned order Friday.

Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor said they would have denied the appeal.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. “I view today’s decision as yet another grave misuse of our emergency docket,” she wrote. “Because, respectfully, I cannot abide our repeated, gratuitous, and harmful interference with cases pending in the lower courts while lives hang in the balance, I dissent.”

Last month, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court said Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had overstepped her legal authority by canceling the legal protection.

Her decision “threw the future of these Venezuelan citizens into disarray and exposed them to substantial risk of wrongful removal, separation from their families and loss of employment,” the panel wrote.

But Trump’s lawyers said the law bars judges from reviewing these decisions by U.S. immigration officials.

Homeland Security applauded the Supreme Court’s action. “Temporary Protected Status was always supposed to be just that: Temporary,” Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement. “Yet, previous administrations abused, exploited, and mangled TPS into a de facto amnesty program.”

Congress authorized this protected status for people who are already in the United States but cannot return home because their native countries are not safe.

The Biden administration offered the protections to Venezuelans because of the political and economic collapse brought about by the authoritarian regime of Nicolás Maduro.

Alejandro Mayorkas, the Homeland Security secretary under Biden, granted the protected status to groups of Venezuelans in 2021 and 2023, totaling about 607,000 people.

Mayorkas extended it again in January, three days before Trump was sworn in. That same month, Noem decided to reverse the extension, which was set to expire for both groups of Venezuelans in October 2026.

Shortly afterward, Noem announced the termination of protections for the 2023 group by April.

In March, Chen issued an order temporarily pausing Noem’s repeal, which the Supreme Court set aside in May with only Jackson in dissent.

The San Francisco judge then held a hearing on the issue and concluded Noem’s repeal violated the Administrative Procedure Act because it was arbitrary and and not justified.

He said his earlier order imposing a temporary pause did not prevent him from ruling on the legality of the repeal, and the 9th Circuit agreed.

The approximately 350,000 Venezuelans who had TPS through the 2023 designation saw their legal status restored. Many reapplied for work authorization, said Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA School of Law, and a counsel for the plaintiffs.

In the meantime, Noem announced the cancellation of the 2021 designation, effective Nov. 7.

Trump’s solicitor general, D. John Sauer, went back to the Supreme Court in September and urged the justices to set aside the second order from Chen.

“This case is familiar to the Court and involves the increasingly familiar and untenable phenomenon of lower courts disregarding this Court’s orders on the emergency docket,” he said.

The Supreme Court’s decision once again reverses the legal status of the 2023 group and cements the end of legal protections for the 2021 group next month.

In a further complication, the Supreme Court’s previous decision said that anyone who had already received documents verifying their TPS status or employment authorization through next year is entitled to keep it.

That, Arulanantham said, “creates another totally bizarre situation, where there are some people who will have TPS through October 2026 as they’re supposed to because the Supreme Court says if you already got a document it can’t be canceled. Which to me just underscores how arbitrary and irrational the whole situation is.”

Advocates for the Venezuelans said the Trump administration has failed to show that their presence in the U.S. is an emergency requiring immediate court relief.

In a brief filed Monday, attorneys for the National TPS Alliance argued the Supreme Court should deny the Trump administration’s request because Homeland Security officials acted outside the scope of their authority by revoking the TPS protections early.

“Stripping the lawful immigration status of 600,000 people on 60 days’ notice is unprecedented,” Jessica Bansal, an attorney representing the Los Angeles-based National Day Laborer Organizing Network, wrote in a statement. “Doing it after promising an additional 18 months protection is illegal.”

Deandre Ayton spent the last two years fading away from the national spotlight on a team that was closer to getting the first overall pick than getting to the first round of the playoffs. On Monday, the 7-foot center stood in front of flashing lights, answered questions in a packed news conference and glanced up at a shiny line of 17 championship trophies.

Ayton, whose inconsistent career hit a new low in Portland, where he was bought out of his contract and criticized for a poor work ethic, smiled at what he called “the biggest stage.” The former No. 1 overall pick is ready to launch his revenge tour with the Lakers.

“It’s the biggest opportunity, I can say, of my career,” Ayton said Monday at Lakers media day. “Some people say it’s my last leg, some people say it’s my last chance. Well, it’s the opportunity I can say I’m truly not going to take for granted.”

Marcus Smart knows the feeling. The 2022 defensive player of the year is coming off a contract buyout in Washington. After nine years and three all-defensive team honors with the Boston Celtics, Smart has played in just 54 games over two injury-plagued years with Memphis and Washington. The 31-year-old recognizes some may have forgotten the “Celtics’ Marcus Smart” — the player who guarded all five positions, knocked down timely threes and brought contagious, tone-setting toughness.

The Lakers still remember.

“I know what he brings to the game,” LeBron James said. “I know that team is first, second, third, fourth, fifth, when it comes to Marcus Smart.”

Despite his resume and standing in the league, Smart doesn’t expect automatic entry to the Lakers’ starting lineup.

“Whether I start or come off the bench,” Smart said, “my presence will be made.”

Lakers guard Marcus Smart takes part in media day at UCLA Health Training Center on Monday.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

Smart’s defensive prowess could be a significant boost to a starting group that figures to include James, Luka Doncic and Austin Reaves. Rui Hachimura, who started in 57 of his 59 regular-season appearances last season, is in the final year of his contract after averaging 13.1 points and five rebounds per game last season.

Facing the possibility of coming off the bench ahead of a contract year, Hachimura said he would defer to coaches to decide what was best. Coach JJ Redick said the team has seven or eight starting-caliber players, and the starting lineup doesn’t weigh heavily on his mind entering his second season at the helm.

But Ayton’s starting position feels solidified.

The center was the Lakers’ most significant offseason addition after the blockbuster trade that brought Doncic to L.A. also left the team without a starting center. Jaxson Hayes, who was thrust into the starting role out of necessity but fell out of the rotation during the playoffs, will be a valuable one-two punch with Ayton at center, James said. Forward Maxi Kleber, who played only five minutes after joining the team during the midseason trade with Dallas, said he is fully healthy after a lengthy foot injury.

Kleber, 33, knows firsthand the impact Doncic can have on a post player’s career. Kleber has played with Doncic since the Slovenian superstar was drafted in 2018 and marveled at Doncic’s ability to get easy shots for his teammates. Lob chances will start falling from the sky like never before for Ayton.

After practicing together in the offseason, Kleber commended Ayton for getting stronger and adding to his physical presence on the court. Redick has challenged the entire roster to arrive in “championship shape.”

Ayton didn’t need the additional motivation.

“You guys have an Angry Ayton,” the 27-year-old said, “where I’ve been disrespected most of my career and just been doubted. And I’m here where all [that is] behind me and I can add all that fuel into winning and playing alongside Luka.”

Doncic, out for his own redemption after last year’s trade and conversations about his weight and work ethic, was eager to begin his first training camp with the Lakers. Coming off a quarterfinals appearance at EuroBasket with the Slovenian national team, Doncic said he felt stronger and quicker on the court after his offseason physical transformation. One of the league’s pick-and-roll savants, Doncic should help Ayton rediscover the dominance he flashed while helping the Phoenix Suns reach the NBA Finals in 2021 and post a franchise-record 64 wins in 2022.

Finally back in the NBA spotlight with a new team, Ayton relishes the chance to chase more meaningful records.

“You can feel the pressure through the door,” Ayton said. “This team wants to win a championship.”