hearing

WASHINGTON — The Department of Homeland Security has walked back what lawyers called an illegal attempt to fast-track the deportation of a woman who has lived in the U.S. for nearly 30 years and to expel her without an immigration court hearing, her attorneys said.

Lawyers for Mirta Amarilis Co Tupul, 38, filed a lawsuit earlier this month to stop her imminent deportation to Guatemala. A U.S. district court judge in Arizona dismissed the case Wednesday after the federal government moved the woman to regular deportation proceedings and agreed in writing not to attempt expedited removal again, her lawyers said.

The judge had granted an emergency request to temporarily pause the deportation while the case played out in court.

The case highlighted broader concerns that the Trump administration is stretching immigration law to speed up deportations in its effort to remove as many immigrants as possible.

Federal law since 1996 holds that immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for fewer than two years can be placed in expedited removal proceedings which bypass the immigration court process. Longtime immigrants, however, cannot be removed until they’ve had a chance to plead their case before a judge.

In a sworn declaration, one of Co Tupul’s attorneys wrote that a deportation officer told her the agency had a “new policy” of placing immigrants in expedited removal proceedings after their first contact with immigration authorities.

“This appears to have been a test case in which the administration attempted to enforce a ‘new policy’ against Ms. Co Tupul,” Eric Lee, one of Co Tupul’s attorneys, said Thursday. “The district court quickly shut down this effort in no uncertain terms. Maybe this has slowed the government’s efforts to expand expedited removal, or maybe the government is waiting for another test case where the non-citizen lacks legal representation.”

Emails reviewed by The Times showed that Co Tupul’s lawyer provided extensive evidence of her longtime residence. Immigration officials told the lawyer that her client would remain in expedited removal proceedings anyway.

Assistant Homeland Security Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said that after Co Tupul’s lawyers provided documentation verifying she had lived in the U.S. for more than two years, “ICE followed the law and placed her in normal removal proceedings.”

“Any allegation that DHS is ‘testing out’ a new policy regarding illegal aliens who have been in the country for longer than two years into expedited removal is false,” McLaughlin added.

Co Tupul, a Phoenix resident, was pulled over as she drove to her job at a laundromat on July 22. She remains detained at Eloy Detention Center, about 65 miles southeast of Phoenix.

Marcus Morris Sr. was denied bond during a hearing Tuesday morning in Florida’s Broward County two days after the former NBA player was arrested at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport on felony fraud charges out of Nevada.

The judge denied Morris’ motion to set bond, saying that she did not have the jurisdiction to make such a ruling for an out-of-state case.

Footage from Tuesday’s hearing, posted online by TMZ, shows Morris in attendance, wearing a jail-issued beige jumpsuit and handcuffs. NBA free agent Markieff Morris also attended in support of his twin brother.

Records from the Las Vegas Township Justice Court indicate that warrants were issued earlier this year, one in March and the other in June, for Morris’ arrest. The Boca Raton, Fla., resident faces the same two felony counts in each case — drawing or passing a check for $1,200 or more with the intent to defraud and theft valued at $100,000 or more.

Yony Noy, an agent for Morris, has maintained on social media that Morris’ legal troubles stem from an outstanding marker with a casino.

During the proceedings, the prosecuting attorney representing the state of Florida, confirmed that there are two warrants for Morris’ arrest in Nevada and both are for outstanding markers for more than $100,000 each.

The prosecuting attorney also indicated that although Nevada is looking to extradite Morris, it is also willing to consider dismissing the charges if Morris’ debts are paid in full. An attorney representing Morris said that “a large payment” had already been sent via wire in an effort to resolve the issue.

Morris made more than $100 million in salary during an 11-year NBA career that included four seasons with the Clippers.

FORT PIERCE, Fla. — A man charged with trying to assassinate President Trump last year in South Florida can represent himself during his trial, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon signed off on Ryan Routh’s request but said court-appointed attorneys need to remain as standby counsel. Earlier in the week, the federal public defenders had asked to be taken off the case, saying Routh had refused repeated attempts to meet with them.

Routh said during the hearing that his attorneys were diligent but they didn’t listen to him and were afraid of him.

“How are they supposed to represent me and say I’m not a dangerous person when they don’t believe that?” Routh said.

Routh, 59, is scheduled to stand trial in September, a year after prosecutors say a U.S. Secret Service agent thwarted his attempt to shoot Trump as he played golf. Routh has pleaded not guilty to charges of attempting to assassinate a major presidential candidate, assaulting a federal officer and several firearm violations.

Reiterating her message from a July 10 hearing, Cannon told Routh that she doesn’t intend to delay the Sept. 8 start date of his trial, even if she lets him represent himself. She also once again told Routh that she believes it’s a bad idea for Routh to represent himself.

Routh, who said he completed two years of college after earning his GED certificate, told Cannon that he understands the potential challenges and would be ready for trial.

Cannon said Thursday that she decided to hold the second hearing after receiving a June 29 letter from Routh that did not arrive at the courthouse until after that hearing. In that letter, Routh said he and his attorneys were “a million miles apart” and that they were refusing to answer his questions. He also wrote that he could be used in a prisoner exchange with Iran, China, North Korea or Russia.

“I could die being of some use and save all this court mess, but no one acts; perhaps you have the power to trade me away,” Routh wrote.

Cannon told Routh that she believed the federal public defenders assigned to Routh’s case were excellent attorneys.

“I find no basis to believe that there has been ineffective assistance of counsel,” Cannon said.

The judge also reminded Routh that she will not be able to assist Routh or provide legal advice during the trial.

Cannon also briefly addressed Routh’s suggestion of a prisoner exchange, saying, “I have no power or any opinion of anything you’ve written there.”

On Wednesday, the federal public defender’s office filed a motion for termination of appointment of counsel, saying “the attorney-client relationship is irreconcilably broken.” Attorneys said Routh has refused six attempts to meet with their team, including a scheduled in-person meeting Tuesday morning at the federal detention center in Miami.

“It is clear that Mr. Routh wishes to represent himself, and he is within his Constitutional rights to make such a demand,” the motion said.

Cannon denied their motion on Thursday, explaining that their office was in the best position to prevent delays to the trial.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that criminal defendants have a right to represent themselves in court proceedings, as long as they can show a judge they are competent to waive their right to be defended by an attorney.

Prosecutors have said Routh methodically plotted to kill Trump for weeks before aiming a rifle through the shrubbery as Trump played golf on Sept. 15 at his West Palm Beach country club. A Secret Service agent spotted Routh before Trump came into view. Officials said Routh aimed his rifle at the agent, who opened fire, causing Routh to drop his weapon and flee without firing a shot.

Law enforcement obtained help from a witness who prosecutors said informed officers that he saw a person fleeing. The witness was then flown in a police helicopter to a nearby interstate where Routh was arrested, and the witness confirmed it was the person he had seen, prosecutors have said.

Routh will have his first chance to represent himself on Friday during a scheduled hearing on whether certain evidence and testimony can be used at trial. His former attorneys are expected to be present as standby counsel.

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

Fischer writes for the Associated Press.

A federal court has begun hearings in a pivotal case as Harvard seeks to force the United States government to return $2.6bn in federal funding frozen earlier this year.

A lawyer for Harvard, Steven Lehotsky, said at Monday’s hearing that the case is about the government trying to control the “inner workings” of Harvard. The funding cuts, if not reversed, could lead to the loss of research, damaged careers and the closing of labs, he said.

President Donald Trump’s administration has battered the nation’s oldest and wealthiest university with sanctions for months as it presses a series of demands on the Ivy League school, which it decries as a hotbed of liberalism and anti-Semitism.

Harvard has resisted, and the lawsuit over the cuts to its research grants represents the primary challenge to the administration in a standoff that is being widely watched across higher education and beyond.

The case is before US District Judge Allison Burroughs, who is presiding over lawsuits brought by Harvard against the administration’s efforts to keep it from hosting international students. In that case, she temporarily blocked the administration’s efforts.

At Monday’s hearing, Harvard is asking her to reverse a series of funding freezes. Such a ruling, if it stands, would revive Harvard’s sprawling scientific and medical research operation and hundreds of projects that lost federal money.

A lawyer for the government, Michael Velchik, said the government has the authority to cancel research grants when an institution is out of compliance with the president’s directives. He said episodes at Harvard violated Trump’s order combating anti-Semitism.

Judge questions basis for government’s findings on anti-Semitism

Burroughs pushed back, questioning how the government could make “ad hoc” decisions to cancel grants and do so across Harvard without offering evidence that any of the research is anti-Semitic.

She also argued the government had provided “no documentation, no procedure” to “suss out” whether Harvard administrators “have taken enough steps or haven’t” to combat anti-Semitism.

“The consequences of that in terms of constitutional law are staggering,” she said during Monday’s hearing. “I don’t think you can justify a contract action based on impermissible suppression of speech. Where do I have that wrong?”

Velchik said the case comes down to the government’s choosing how best to spend billions of dollars in research funding.

“Harvard claims the government is anti-Harvard. I reject that,” Velchik said. “The government is pro-Jewish students at Harvard. The government is pro-Jewish faculty at Harvard.”

Harvard’s lawsuit accuses the Trump administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university after it rejected a series of demands in an April 11 letter from a federal anti-Semitism task force. A second lawsuit over the cuts filed by the American Association of University Professors and its Harvard faculty chapter has been consolidated with the university’s.

The April letter demanded sweeping changes related to campus protests, academics and admissions. For example, the letter told Harvard to audit the viewpoints of students and faculty and admit more students or hire new professors if the campus was found to lack diverse points of view.

Harvard President Alan Garber has said the university has made changes to combat anti-Semitism but said no government “should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue”.

Monday’s hearing ended without Burroughs issuing a ruling from the bench. A ruling is expected later in writing.

Trump’s pressure campaign has involved a series of sanctions

The same day Harvard rejected the government’s demands, Trump officials moved to freeze $2.2bn in research grants. Education Secretary Linda McMahon declared in May that Harvard would no longer be eligible for new grants, and weeks later, the administration began cancelling contracts with Harvard.

As Harvard fought the funding freeze in court, individual agencies began sending letters announcing the frozen research grants were being terminated. They cited a clause that allows grants to be scrapped if they no longer align with government policies.

Harvard, which has the nation’s largest endowment at $53bn, has moved to self-fund some of its research, but warned it can’t absorb the full cost of the federal cuts.

In court filings, the school said the government “fails to explain how the termination of funding for research to treat cancer, support veterans, and improve national security addresses antisemitism”.

The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation, saying the grants were under review even before the April demand letter was sent. It argues the government has wide discretion to cancel contracts for policy reasons.

The research funding is only one front in Harvard’s fight with the federal government. The Trump administration also has sought to prevent the school from hosting foreign students, and Trump has threatened to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status.

Finally, last month, the Trump administration formally issued a finding that the school tolerated anti-Semitism – a step that eventually could jeopardise all of Harvard’s federal funding, including federal student loans or grants. The penalty is typically referred to as a “death sentence”.

WASHINGTON,, July 16 (UPI) — A fiery House Homeland Security Committee hearing Wednesday exposed deep partisan divisions over the role of non-governmental organizations in aiding migrants.

Republicans accused faith-based and humanitarian groups of enabling illegal immigration, while Democrats sharply criticized holding the session as a political stunt that targeted religious freedom.

The hearing marked an escalation in the Republican-led effort to scrutinize the role of non-governmental organizations in federal immigration policy.

GOP lawmakers argued that groups receiving taxpayer dollars are contributing to what they called a historic border crisis by providing services to undocumented migrants who are not being detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Conversely, Democrats vehemently argued that the purpose of the hearing was a politically motivated attempt to discredit humanitarian organizations.

Led by Chairman Michael Guest, R-Miss., the hearing centered on claims that the former Biden administration created the “worst border crisis in history,” and that the Federal Emergency Management Agency, along with other organizations supported by tax dollars, are paying for hotels for immigrants’ stays instead of utilizing detention centers.

Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., sternly pushed back, accusing the majority of vilifying groups that serve vulnerable populations and abusing congressional power to intimidate those driven by missions to assist immigrants. He also criticized the majority’s witnesses, whom he said represented only one side of the issue.

“Today’s hearing are shameful abuses of congressional power to bully people for how they choose to exercise their religion and help their own name, ” said Thompson, who entered into the record a letter from more than 600 nonprofits opposed to the hearing.

In addition, a staffer showed a chart showing the committee’s Republicans who have voted in favor of NGO funding, including Reps. Clay Higgins, R-La., Michael McCaul, R-Texas, August Pfluger, R-Texas and the committee chairman, Mark Green, R-Tenn.

Thompson criticized Green for not being present at his final full committee hearing. He announced his retirement announcement in June, effective Sunday.

To support their arguments, Republicans invited three witnesses critical of the Biden administration’s immigration approach and the role of non-governmental organizations. Their testimony, at times emotional and combative, prompted sharp responses from Democrats on the panel.

Mike Howell, president of The Oversight Project at the Heritage Foundation, opened with an ardent statement related to violence against ICE officers.

The Oversight Project “works to expose and root out corruption in government, among elected officials, and in our most influential organizations to ensure power resides with the American people,” according to the Heritage Foundation’s website.

“The violence is getting out of control, and it is fueled by demagoguery of politicians, whether it is one of your members telling Axios that there needs to be blood to grab the attention of the public,” Howell said. “Another saying stability is important to prepare for violence, or even a member of this committee being arrested for forcibly impeding or interfering with federal officials.”

Thompson said he interpreted Howell’s statement to be outside of the scope of the hearing, and the issue was put to a vote. The committee decided 9-8 in favor of Howell’s continued testimony.

The other two witnesses were Ali Hopper, founder and president of GUARD Against Trafficking, an organization whose mission is to combat human trafficking, and Julio Rosas, a national correspondent for Blaze Media, a U.S. conservative media company.

Hopper focused on the harms to children within the immigration system and questioned the accountability of nonprofit organizations, while Rosas echoed Republican concerns, arguing that while NGOs aim to help, they may unintentionally worsen situations.

The hearing took an unexpected turn late in the session when Thompson criticized Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem for her recent online presence, referencing her controversial personal posts and past statements. He drew a sharp comparison between Noem’s actions and the deportation of vulnerable migrants, including a child with cancer.

Thompson, in a motion, wanted to subpoena Noem given the committee’s broader oversight efforts. Republicans quickly moved to table the motion in a non-debatable vote, which passed by a narrow margin.

Summing up the session, Guest said, “I am offended when people from the other side say we’re not being Christian. we’re not saying that all nonprofits are bad. Many of us support and give money and volunteer.”

“But, this hearing today is focused on those nonprofits which were government funded, which were used by the Biden-Harris administration to continue to move people across the border against the will of the public and without the authorization of Congress.”

The House Oversight Subcommittee on Health Care and Financial Services held a hearing recently about diversity, equity and inclusion. Fewer than five of the 90 minutes were spent talking about healthcare or anything related to money. Instead, conservative lawmakers wasted time and taxpayers’ dollars advancing an anti-DEI agenda with which they have become obsessed. Anecdotes were more interesting to them than were evidence-based truths about the Americans whom discrimination most harms.

Because the GOP comprises the majority in the House, all but one of the four expert witnesses in the hearing were theirs. Like the three other times I had testified on Capitol Hill, I was the lone Democrat. The Republicans’ strategy was familiar: ask a series of yes/no questions that would require contextualization to answer adequately, then interrupt as the witness attempts to provide a nuanced response.

One question for me from Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas): “Should people be treated differently based on their race?” As I had done in my written testimony, I tried to explain to him that Black, Indigenous, Asian American and Latino American people have long been mistreated because of their race, which has led to persistent and pervasive racial inequities that disadvantage them relative to white people. But he apparently did not want to hear any of those facts, because he kept cutting me off, repeatedly declaring that this was a yes or no question.

Gill posed another question to which he did not allow an informative answer: “Do you believe that race should be considered in employer hiring practices?” For centuries, racism and white supremacy have been powerful determinants of who works where, what they are paid, and their opportunities for advancement to leadership in workplaces across industries. Race should not influence employment outcomes, but it too often has and still does.

Because of both implicit and explicit biases, race influences hiring processes across industries. Research makes painstakingly clear, though, that it is white applicants who most often and most lucratively benefit from preferential treatment. People of color and job seekers with ethnic-sounding last names have long been and continue to be routinely discriminated against, a highly cited University of Chicago study shows.

I do not believe that the remedy for discrimination is more discrimination. Instead, strategy and intentionality are both necessary and required to right past and present wrongs in hiring processes. Because the inequities are racialized and gendered, programs and practices ought to deliberately address the mindsets, structures and systems that have routinely locked irrefutably qualified people of color and women out of well-deserved opportunities. Perhaps had I been allowed to answer fully, Gill and I would have found common ground in our opposition to unlawful workplace discrimination.

Corporations, universities and other organizations need high-quality professional learning experiences that help employees who are involved in hiring processes understand how and why white job applicants are typically presumed to be smarter and more qualified than applicants of color. Gill and other opponents of diversity programs need to learn about these particular manifestations of white supremacy too. They also could benefit from exposure to research that shows how workplace racial stratification systems cyclically route the majority of employees of color into the lowest-paid, lowest-authority jobs and lock them out of leadership positions.

Federal statistics show that 77% of managers across all industries are white. Furthermore, 84% of executive-level leaders at Fortune 100 companies are white, according to a Heidrick & Struggles report. If our positions had been reversed and I were the one posing questions, I would have asked Gill about those statistics: Is it that most white people are just that much more talented and deserving than people of color, or could it be something else? In the midst of our chaotic crosstalk, I was able to make the point that I do not believe that white candidates are the only qualified people for jobs.

“I didn’t say that, nobody said that,” Gill replied. “And you’re not going to intimidate me by slandering me as a racist.” I did not say or imply that he was. However, his mistaken presumption is revealing and unsurprising. It sometimes happens — especially among white people — when simplistic or otherwise problematic positions on race are challenged. I was able to make this clear: “And you’re not going to intimidate me by insisting that I called you a racist.” I reminded him that a hearing transcript confirming what I actually said would be made publicly available.

Gill was in search of yes/no responses to his questions. Racism and racial inequities in employment, university admissions and other processes are far more complicated than that. But if he was indeed only interested in simple truths, there are at least two. First, professionals of color and women are systematically passed over for job opportunities and promotions because of their race and gender considerably more often than are their white male counterparts. Second, diversity policies and programs aim to redress such inequities accrued to employees because of their skin color, nationality, ethnicity, sex, gender, disability, weight, accent, sexual orientation and other traits.

Shaun Harper is a professor of education, business and public policy at the University of Southern California and the author of “Let’s Talk About DEI: Productive Disagreements About America’s Most Polarizing Topics.”

The dad was on his way to Morocco with his girlfriend and best pal when the pilot’s announcement left him feeling terrified – and it only got worse from there

A horrified dad has sworn off flying for life after his Ryanair flight was forced into an emergency landing not long after takeoff from Manchester Airport.

On March 16, Ashton Small, 41, from Liverpool, was among the passengers on board the RK 1266 flight destined for Agadir in Morocco.

The plane set off around 4pm but Ashton says they were only about an hour and a half into their journey before the pilot announced they had to divert back to Manchester.

The ordeal when they landed only added to Ashton’s fears, with fire engines racing towards the plane – an image that has left the dad “too traumatised” to even entertain the thought of future flights.

Travelling along with his girlfriend Danielle Clark – who was on her first ever flight – and his best pal, Ashton told our sister paper the Liverpool Echo: “I have trauma from being on that flight.”

He vividly described the gut-wrenching minutes the sky, explaining: “We had been in the air for no more than one hour and 30 minutes, the plane just kept turning left then right, left, right, I had started to panic. I was panicking more because I wasn’t sitting next to my partner or friend either.

“The captain then told us we were going to have to land back at Manchester airport. You hear about planes crashing, I thought I was having a near death experience,” reports Dublin Live.

Ashton recounted his terrifying experience during the rough landing, saying: “The landing was horrible… I just wanted to get off. It scared me seeing the fire engines.”

“When we were landing I turned airplane mode off on my phone and rang my mum and dad straight away. I phoned them and said if anything happens I love you both. I told my partner I just wanted to go home.”

He was so scared that when they finally hit the ground, he gripped his seat tightly, feeling terrified of the scene unfolding on the runway.

Expressing his disappointment over the whole ordeal, Ashton added: “The pilot or Ryanair didn’t even say sorry to us for the inconvenience. It has put me off going on holiday anymore, it was a terrible experience.

“I thought I was going to die. I have a little boy who is four and the only holiday I will be going on now is driving trips. I don’t trust planes now, I can’t, not after that.”

“You never know what is going to happen. When I got home to my mum and dad they both hugged me and said they don’t want me going on any other planes, I’m a 41-year-old man, but when I phoned them they said they genuinely thought something was going to happen.”

A spokesperson for Ryanair said at the time: “This flight from Manchester to Agadir (Sun, 16 Mar) returned to Manchester shortly after take-off due to a minor technical issue. The aircraft landed normally at Manchester Airport and passengers disembarked.

“To minimise disruption to affected passengers, we quickly arranged for a replacement aircraft to operate this flight, which departed to Agadir at 19:05 local that same day. We sincerely apologise to affected passengers for any inconvenience caused.”

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.”

WASHINGTON — Nearly six months after Joe Biden left the White House, Senate Republicans are still scrutinizing his presidency, kicking off the first in what’s expected to be a series of congressional hearings this year on his mental fitness in office.

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee brought in three witnesses Wednesday — none of whom served in Biden’s administration — to scrutinize his time in office, arguing that the former president, his staff and the media must be held accountable. Democrats boycotted the hearing and criticized Republicans for “armchair-diagnosing” Biden when the committee could be looking into serious matters.

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, who co-chaired the hearing, said that they will aim to “shine a light on exactly what went on in the White House during Biden’s presidency.”

“We simply cannot ignore what transpired because President Biden is no longer in office,” Cornyn said.

A spokesperson for Biden declined to comment on the hearing.

It was the first in what could be several hearings about Biden in the coming months. Over in the House, the Oversight Committee has subpoenaed several of Biden’s former staff members, along with his White House doctor, ordering him to testify at a June 27 hearing “as part of the investigation into the cover-up of President Joe Biden’s cognitive decline.”

Questions about Biden’s age and fitness erupted in the summer after his disastrous performance in a debate against Republican challenger Donald Trump, which ultimately led to the Democrat’s withdrawal from the race.

Even after Trump won back the presidency in November, Republicans have continued to hammer on Biden’s age, citing in part new reporting about Biden that was published this year.

Trump now alleges that Biden administration officials may have forged the former president’s signature and taken sweeping actions without his knowledge, though he provided no evidence of that happening. Trump has ordered lawyers at the White House and the Justice Department to investigate.

Republicans played clips during the hearing Wednesday of Democrats defending Biden. In the montage, the Democrats talk about how Biden was mentally sharp when he was in office.

“Most Democrats on this committee have chosen to all but boycott the hearing and have failed to call a single witness,” Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) said. “They have chosen to ignore this issue, like they ignored President Biden’s decline.”

Sen. Dick Durbin, the committee’s top Democrat, criticized Republicans for holding a hearing on the last president at a time when there are “numerous critical challenges facing the nation that are under our jurisdiction.”

“Apparently armchair-diagnosing former President Biden is more important than the issues of grave concern,” said Durbin of Illinois.

After his opening remarks, Durbin played a video montage of his own — but with clips of Trump speaking that he said reflected the “cognitive ability” of the current president. Durbin left the hearing after his opening remarks.

Three witnesses testified: former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, former White House official Theodore Wold and University of Virginia law professor John Harrison. Spicer and Wold both served under Trump.

Much of the focus was on Biden’s alleged use of an autopen. Trump has repeated long-standing allegations that the Biden White House relied on an autopen to sign presidential pardons, executive orders and other key documents, claiming that its use cast doubt on their validity.

Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.) also questioned Spicer on “what mechanisms should we put in place” to hold the media accountable “for not actually following what is clearly in front of them.”

Cappelletti writes for the Associated Press.

President Trump broke the law when he mobilized thousands of members of the California National Guard to the streets of Los Angeles amid protests over immigration raids, and must return control of the troops to Gov. Gavin Newsom, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer of San Francisco granted the state of California’s request for a temporary restraining order Thursday evening, but also delayed enforcement of the order until noon Friday, giving the Trump administration time to file an appeal with the U.S. 9th Circuit.

In a 36-page decision, Breyer wrote that Trump’s actions “were illegal — both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution.” Breyer added that he was “troubled by the implication” inherent in the Trump administration’s argument that “protest against the federal government, a core civil liberty protected by the First Amendment, can justify a finding of rebellion.”

Newsom, who filed the lawsuit along with the state of California, called the ruling “a win for all Americans.”

“Today was really about the test of democracy, and today we passed the test,” Newsom told reporters in a building that houses the California Supreme Court in San Francisco.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

The ruling, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta told reporters, is “a critical early indication that upon quick review of the facts of our case, the court sees the merits of our argument.”

“We aren’t in the throes of a rebellion,” Bonta said. “We are not under threat of an invasion. Nothing is preventing the federal government from enforcing federal law. The situation in Los Angeles last weekend didn’t warrant the deployment of military troops, and their arrival only inflamed the situation.”

The Trump administration filed a notice of appeal in the case late Thursday, and is seeking to delay Breyer’s order until the 9th Circuit decides on the case. If the 9th Circuit granted the request for a stay, control of the National Guard would not revert back to Newsom on Friday, Bonta said.

If the 9th Circuit does not grant the stay, Breyer’s order will take effect Friday afternoon, sending the National Guard back to Newsom’s control. Newsom said troops would go back to working on counter drug enforcement, border security and forest management.

During a hearing Thursday, Breyer seemed skeptical of the Justice Department’s argument that courts could not question the president’s judgment on key legal issues, including whether the protests and unrest in Los Angeles constituted either “a rebellion or danger of a rebellion.”

“We’re talking about the president exercising his authority, and of course, the president is limited in his authority,” Breyer said. “That’s the difference between the president and King George.”

Trump and the White House have argued that the military mobilization is legal under Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Forces, which gives the president the authority to federalize the National Guard if there is “a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States.”

“The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of ‘rebellion,’” Breyer wrote. There were instances of violence, he said, but the Trump administration did not identify “a violent, armed, organized, open and avowed uprising against the government as a whole.”

“The evidence is overwhelming that protesters gathered to protest a single issue—the immigration raids,” Breyer wrote.

Title 10 of the U.S. Code also requires that orders from the president “be issued through the governors of the States.”

As governor, Newsom is the commander in chief of the California National Guard. Last Saturday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth sent a memo to the head of the California Guard to mobilize nearly 2,000 members, who then sent the memo to Newsom’s office, the state’s complaint said. Neither Newsom nor his office consented to the mobilization, the lawsuit said.

Newsom wrote to Hegseth on Sunday, asking him to rescind the troop deployment. The letter said the mobilization was “a serious breach of state sovereignty that seems intentionally designed to inflame the situation, while simultaneously depriving the state from deploying these personnel and resources where they are truly required.”

“I’m trying to figure out how something is ‘through’ somebody, if in fact you didn’t send it to him,” Breyer asked. “As long as he gets a copy of it at some point, it’s going through?”

Breyer was less willing, however, to engage in the legality of Trump’s deployment of U.S. Marines to Los Angeles. Attorneys for California noted that 140 Marines were scheduled to relieve and replace Guardsmen over the next 24 hours.

Protests emerged across Los Angeles on Friday in response to a series of flash raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents across the county. A handful of agitators among the protesters committed violence and vandalism, prompting Trump to quickly deploy the California National Guard to respond. He added active-duty Marines to the operation Monday. Protests, and some sporadic violent rioting, have continued since the deployments.

Trump has said that the mobilization was necessary to “deal with the violent, instigated riots,” and that without the National Guard, “Los Angeles would have been completely obliterated.”

Breyer said that the Trump administration had identified “some stray violent incidents relating to the protests,” and from there, he said, “boldly claim that state and local officials were ‘unable to bring rioters under control.’”

“It is not the federal government’s place in our constitutional system to take over a state’s police power whenever it is dissatisfied with how vigorously or quickly the state is enforcing its own laws,” Breyer wrote.

The attorneys general from 18 other states, as well as Los Angeles City Atty. Hydee Feldstein-Soto, supported California’s position in the case.

Wilner reported from Washington, D.C., Wong from San Francisco and Nelson from Los Angeles.

June 10 (UPI) — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth sparred with Democrats on Capitol Hill on Tuesday over the decision to send 5,000 Marines and National Guard troops into Los Angeles as some protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids turned violent.

Hegseth, a former National Guardsman, testified before the House Appropriations subcommittee, where he defended the decision to deploy troops and the role of ICE.

“We ought to be able to enforce immigration law in this country,” Hegseth testified. “I think we’re entering another phase, especially under President Trump with his focus on the homeland, where the National Guard and Reserves become a critical component of how we secure that homeland.”

“In Los Angeles, we believed ICE had the right to safely conduct operations,” Hegseth added. “We deployed National Guard and the Marines to protect them.”

Rep. Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., asked Hegseth why he was sending “war fighters to cities to interact with civilians?”

“ICE agents need to be able to do their job,” Hegseth responded. “They are being attacked for doing their job, which is deporting illegal criminals. The governor of California has failed to protect his people, along with the mayor of Los Angeles. And so President Trump has said he will protect our agents and our Guard and Marines.”

Aguilar fired back against Hegseth’s answer and said, “The law also says Mr. Secretary that the orders for these purposes shall be issued through governors of the states.”

Democratic Rep. Betty McCollum of Minnesota also sparred with Hegseth about the cost of deploying the National Guard and Marines, and whether their absence would impact trainings in other parts of the country.

The two talked over each other repeatedly as Hegseth referenced the George Floyd murder protests and accused Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz of “abandoning a police precinct” in 2020.

“We’re both from Minnesota. I was in the Twin Cities during the riots that followed the murder of George Floyd. Tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets for days,” said McCollum. “At no point did we need Marines to be deployed. This is a deeply unfair position to put our Marines in. Their service should be honored. It should not be exploited.”

“You are right,” Hegseth testified. “We are both originally from Minnesota. Which is why I recall 2020 quite well, when Gov. Walz abandoned a police precinct and allowed it to be burned to the ground — and also allowed five days of chaos to occur inside the streets of Minneapolis.”

“We believe that ICE has the right to safely conduct operations in any state and any jurisdiction in the country,” Hegseth continued. “Especially after 21 million illegals have crossed our border under the previous administration. ICE should be able to do their job.”

“Chairman, I have limited time,” McCollum declared. “I asked a budget question.”

After repeated questioning about the budget by several committee members, Hegseth finally gave an answer.

“We have a 13% increase in our defense budget and we will have the capability to cover contingencies, which is something the National Guard and the Marines plan for. So we have the funding to cover contingencies, especially ones as important as maintaining law and order in a major American city,” Hegseth testified.

During the hearing, Hegseth was also questioned about spending cuts to foreign aid programs, including USAID, and staffing cuts at the Defense Department, to which he argued the administration is reducing any program considered “wasteful and duplicitous.”

A federal judge in Vermont on Wednesday released a Russian-born scientist and Harvard University researcher from immigration custody as she deals with a criminal charge of smuggling frog embryos into the United States.

Colleagues and academics testified on Kseniia Petrova’s behalf, saying she is doing valuable research to advance cures for cancer.

“It is excellent science,” Michael West, a scientist and entrepreneur in the biotech industry, testified on Petrova’s research papers. He said he does not know Petrova, but has become acquainted with her published work, citing one in which she explains that “mapping embryonic development [can produce] novel ways of intervening in the biology of regeneration and aging.”

West said that Petrova’s medical research skills are highly sought after and that he himself would hire her “in a heartbeat.”

Petrova, 30, is currently in the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service in Louisiana. She is expected to be brought to Massachusetts as early as Friday in preparation for a bail hearing next week on the smuggling charge, lawyers said in court.

“We are gratified that today’s hearing gave us the opportunity to present clear and convincing evidence that Kseniia Petrova was not carrying anything dangerous or unlawful, and that customs officers at Logan International Airport had no legal authority to revoke her visa or detain her,” Petrova’s lawyer, Gregory Romanovsky, said in a statement. “At today’s hearing, we demonstrated that Kseniia is neither a danger to the community nor a flight risk, and does not belong in immigration detention.”

Petrova had been vacationing in France, where she stopped at a lab specializing in splicing superfine sections of frog embryos and obtained a package of samples to be used for research.

As she passed through a U.S. Customs and Border Protection checkpoint in Boston Logan International Airport in February, Petrova was questioned about the samples. She told the Associated Press in an interview last month that she did not realize the items needed to be declared and was not trying to sneak anything into the country. After an interrogation, Petrova was told her visa was being canceled.

After being detained by immigration officials, she filed a petition in Vermont seeking her release. She was briefly detained in Vermont before she was brought to Louisiana.

Petrova was charged with smuggling earlier this month as U.S. District Judge Christina Reiss in Burlington, Vt., set the hearing date on her petition. Reiss ruled Wednesday that the immigration officers’ actions were unlawful, that Petrova didn’t present a danger, and that the embryos were non-living, non-hazardous and “posed a threat to no one.”

Romanovsky had asked Reiss to issue an order to stop the possibility of ICE re-detaining Petrova if she is also released from detention in Massachusetts.

Reiss said she was reluctant “to enjoin an executive agency from undertaking future actions which are uncertain” and would rely on U.S. Department of Justice attorney Jeffrey Hartman’s comments that the government has no intention at this time to rearrest Petrova.

Romanovsky had said Customs and Border Protection officials had no legal basis for canceling Petrova’s visa and detaining her.

The Department of Homeland Security had said in a statement on the social media platform X that Petrova was detained after “lying to federal officers about carrying substances into the country.” They allege that messages on her phone “revealed she planned to smuggle the materials through customs without declaring them.”

Harvard had said in a statement that the university “continues to monitor the situation.”

McCormack writes for the Associated Press.

May 20 (UPI) — The U.S. House Rules Committee, after 22 hours of proceedings, late Wednesday advanced President Donald Trump‘s legislative agenda that experts say would add $3 trillion to the federal deficit and negatively affect the poorest of Americans.

Debate on the full House floor began early Thursday.

The House Rules Committee adopted the bill in an 8-4 vote along party lines. They first met shortly after 1 a.m. Wednesday to consider the 1,116-page budget that is roughly $7 trillion

The Finance Committee late Sunday approved the legislation 17-16 along party lines with four Republicans who rejected the bill the first time on Friday voting present: Ralph Norman of Oklagoa, Chip Roy of Texas, Andrew Clyde of Georgia and Josh Brecheen of Oklahoma.

“What the hell are you guys so scared of, that you guys are holding this hearing at 1 in the morning?” Rules Committee Ranking Member Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said. “If Republicans are so proud of what is in this bill, then why are you trying to ram it through in the dead of the night?”

The full House must also vote to adopt the rule first before taking up the underlying bill. Republicans hope to move the House bill, with no support from Democrats, to the Senate by Memorial Day on Monday.

With the GOP holding a slim majority of 220-212, House Speaker Mike Johnson can afford to lose more than three GOP votes. Party hardliners and moderates from vulnerable districts have failed to agree on key issues that include Medicaid, federal clean energy programs and tax breaks to states.

Three House seats were held by Democrats who died, including Gerry Connolly of Virginia on Wednesday.

At least five House GOP members considered vulnerable in the 2026 midterm elections — including Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y. — have vowed to vote against the bill unless it ups the proposed state and local tax deduction from the current proposed $30,000.

The bill contains a massive overhaul of the tax code and deep spending cuts.

An amendment included speeding up work requirements for Medicaid to the end of 2026 rather than 2029.

It also tightens the definition of a “qualified alien” eligible for the program.

There is a new incentive for states that hadn’t expanded Medicaid under Obamacare. It allows those states to pay 110% of Medicare rates for state directed payments as a way to finance Medicaid.

The Center on Budget and Policies Priorities estimates 36 million Medicaid enrollees could be at risk of losing coverage because of potential work requirements and other factors.

In December, there were 78,532,341 on Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, or CHIP.

Also, the bill formalizes the so-called SALT cap, which would allow people to deduct state and local income taxes up to $40,000 for certain income groups. GOP leaders initially wanted cap of $30,000 but key New York, New Jersey and California Republicans vulnerable in the 2026 election, had refused to support it.

Republicans opted to phase out Biden energy tax credits sooner than planned. New projects must break ground within 60 days or be “in service” by the end of 2028 to qualify for the credits.

Earlier, Rep. Chip Roy of Texas,, a holdout, told CNN’s Manu Raju he was “still looking to review more provisions and have more conversations.”

“Yeah, I’m going to vote for it,” Rep. Andy Biggs ,of Arizona, told CNN.

Medicaid changes and a $4 trillion debt limit increase, among other provisions.

The bill includes a $4 trillion debt limit.

Budget plan’s analysis

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released data Tuesday that the House Republican’s budget proposal and its tax provisions would cut federal revenue by around 10% of America’s current national debt over the next decade.

The GOP bill proposal could cost American taxpayers $3.8 trillion over the next 10 years, according to a report this month by the Joint Committee on Taxation, which looked at the effect of tax policies versus spending cuts.

“This bill does not add to the deficit,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed Monday during a press briefing.

On Friday, Moody’s Ratings downgraded the U.S. debt citing the GOP proposal that Moody’s says will tack on $4 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years.

As proposed, the bill would extend Trump’s tax cuts largely to the wealthiest Americans and cut personal income tax rates. It also establishes fresh tax reductions on tips, Social Security, overtime payments and loan interest on automobiles produced in the United States.

An analysis Monday by the University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton school projects that under the Republican plan, the lowest-income American citizens would end up paying more.

Leavitt said the Trump administration’s Council of Economic Advisers claim that there’s $1.6 trillion worth of savings in the GOP bill.

“That’s the largest saving for any legislation that has ever passed Capitol Hill in our nation’s history,” Leavitt continued.

On Tuesday, the president was on Capitol Hill to meet with Johnson and lawmakers in order to push his legislative agenda.

“While I respect President Trump and understand the importance of passing this legislation, I will not do so at the expense of my district,” Lawler posted on X Tuesday afternoon.

Lawler noted that his district was one of only three kept by a Republican that then-Vice President Kamala Harris had won in November’s presidential election in a heavily-taxed Congressional district.

“For over two years, I have been abundantly clear to everyone from the President to House Leadership about the importance of lifting the cap on SALT,” he said about state and local tax deduction caps.

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Democratic senators sparred Tuesday over the Trump administration’s foreign policies, including on Ukraine and Russia, the Middle East and Latin America, as well as the slashing of the U.S. foreign assistance budget and refugee admissions.

At a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, his first since being confirmed on the first day of President Trump’s inauguration, former Florida Sen. Rubio defended the administration’s decisions to his onetime colleagues.

He said “America is back” and claimed four months of foreign policy achievements, even as many of them remain frustratingly inconclusive. Among them are the resumption of nuclear talks with Iran, efforts to bring Russia and Ukraine into peace talks, and efforts to end the war in Gaza between Israel and Hamas.

He praised agreements with El Salvador and other Latin American countries to accept migrant deportees, saying “secure borders, safe communities and zero tolerance for criminal cartels are once again the guiding principles of our foreign policy.” He also rejected assertions that massive cuts to his department’s budget would hurt America’s standing abroad. Instead, he said the cuts would actually improve American status and the United States’ reputation internationally.

Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho), the committee’s chair, opened the hearing with praise for Trump’s changes and spending cuts and welcomed what he called the administration’s promising nuclear talks with Iran. Risch also noted what he jokingly called “modest disagreement” with Democratic lawmakers, who used Tuesday’s hearing to confront Rubio about Trump administration moves that they say are weakening the United States’ influence globally.

Yet Democrats on the Senate committee, including ranking member Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Chris Murphy of Connecticut, Tim Kaine of Virginia, and Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, took sharp issue with Rubio’s presentation.

Shaheen argued that the Trump administration has “eviscerated six decades of foreign policy investments” and given China openings around the world.

“I urge you to stand up to the extremists of the administration,” Shaheen said. Other Democrats excoriated the administration for its suspension of the refugee admissions program, particularly while allowing white Afrikaners from South Africa to enter the country.

In two particularly contentious exchanges, Kaine and Van Hollen demanded answers on the decision to suspend overall refugee admissions but to exempt Afrikaners based on what they called “specious” claims that they have been subjected to massive discrimination by the South African government. Rubio gave no ground.

“The United States has a right to pick and choose who we allow into the United States,” he said. “If there is a subset of people that are easier to vet, who we have a better understanding of who they are and what they’re going to do when they come here, they’re going to receive preference.”

He added: “There are a lot of sad stories around the world, millions and millions of people around the world. It’s heartbreaking, but we cannot assume millions and millions of people around the world. No country can.”

On the Middle East, Rubio said the administration has continued to push ahead with attempts to broker a ceasefire in Gaza and to promote stability in Syria.

He stressed the importance of U.S. engagement with Syria, saying that otherwise, he fears the interim government there could be weeks or months away from a “potential collapse and a full-scale civil war of epic proportions.”

Rubio’s comments addressed Trump’s pledge to lift sanctions on Syria’s new transitional government, which is led by a former militant chief who led the overthrow of the country’s longtime oppressive leader, Bashar Assad, late last year.

Lee and Knickmeyer write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday told conservative judges in Texas they must offer a hearing to detained Venezuelans whom the Trump administration wants to send to a prison in El Salvador.

The justices, over two dissents, rebuked Texas judges and Trump’s lawyers for moving quickly and secretly on a weekend in mid-April to put these men on planes.

That led to a post-midnight order from the high court that told the administration it may “not remove any member of the putative class of detainees.” The administration had argued it had the authority to deport the men as “alien enemies” under a wartime law adopted in 1798.

On Friday, the court issued an unusual eight-page order to explain their earlier decision. In doing so, the justices faulted a federal judge in Lubbock, Texas, and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals for taking no action to protect the due process rights of the detained men.

The order carries a clear message that the justices are troubled by the Trump administration’s pressure to fast-track deportations and by the unwillingness of some judges to protect the rights to due process of law.

On a Saturday in mid-March, Trump’s immigration officials sent three planeloads of detainees from Texas to the maximum-security prison in El Salvador before a federal judge in Washington could intervene. The prisoners included Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man who had an immigration order that was supposed to protect him from being sent back to his native El Salvador.

Afterward, Trump officials said the detained men, including Abrego Garcia, could not be returned to this country. They did so even though the Supreme Court had said they had a duty to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return.

The same scenario was nearly repeated in mid-April, but from a different prison in Texas.

ACLU lawyers rushed to file an emergency appeal with U.S. District Judge James Hendrix. They said some of the detained men were on buses headed for the airport. They argued they deserved a hearing because many of them said they were not members of a crime gang.

The judge denied the appeals for all but two of the detained men.

The 5th Circuit Court upheld the judge’s lack of action and blamed the detainees, saying they gave the judge “only 42 minutes to act.”

The Supreme Court disagreed with both on Friday and overturned a decision of the 5th Circuit.

“A district court’s inaction in the face of extreme urgency and a high risk of serious, perhaps irreparable consequences” for the detained men, the justices wrote. “Here, the district court’s inaction — not for 42 minutes but for 14 hours and 28 minutes — had the practical effect of refusing an injunction to detainees facing an imminent threat of severe, irreparable harm.”

“The 5th Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in the context of removal proceedings. Procedural due process rules are meant to protect” against “the mistaken or unjustified deprivation of life, liberty, or property,” the majority said. “We have long held that no person shall be removed from the United States without opportunity, at some time, to be heard.”

Justices Samuel A. Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented last month, and they did the same on Friday.

Los Angeles County prosecutors filed criminal charges Tuesday against Jillian Lauren Shriner, a bestselling author who is married to Weezer bassist Scott Shriner, following an incident last month where she was wounded by police after allegedly shooting at them from her backyard.

The author, who publishes under the last name Lauren, appeared in a downtown Los Angeles courthouse, pleading not guilty to felony charges for willful discharge of a firearm in a gross negligent manner and assault of a person with a semiautomatic firearm. Prosecutors are also seeking a firearms sentencing enhancement. She faces up to 19 years in state prison if convicted on counts.

Lauren, 51, sported an all-white suit as she stood before the judge to enter her plea. She and her lawyers, Hilary Potashner and Kim Wilkinson, declined to comment after the hearing.

Lauren was initially booked April 9 on suspicion of attempted murder after a bewildering encounter with the LAPD. That afternoon, officers were searching for three hit-and-run suspects following a crash on the 134 Freeway. According to 911 calls from the area, the suspects were attempting to hide in neighborhood backyards around Eagle Rock.

The pursuit led officers to Lauren’s property, where a confrontation ensued as she stood in her backyard armed with a handgun.

Police body cameras and home surveillance videos appeared to show Lauren raising her gun and pointing it at a fence where officers had taken cover. Police said she refused their commands to drop the weapon and fired at them. The police said they shot back, hitting Lauren in the arm.

She fled back into her home, where she remained for about an hour before she was hospitalized and later taken into custody by the Highway Patrol.

There are some indications Lauren may have been unable to hear the officers due to a police helicopter hovering above the scene, possibly mistaking them for the hit-and-run suspects. In a video released by the LAPD, a neighbor could be heard telling a 911 dispatcher Lauren was confused about what happened: “There were three men, and one of them shot her, and the cops are looking for him right now … They have their guns out.”

The New Jersey native has been named a New York Times Bestselling Author for her books, “Everything You Ever Wanted” and “Some Girls: My Life in a Harem” where she recounts her encounters with Prince Jefri Bolkiah of Brunei. Most recently, she published “Behold the Monster: Facing America’s Most Prolific Serial Killer,” a look inside the mind of serial killer Samuel Little. She and Shriner have been married since 2005 and they have two sons together.

Lauren’s preliminary hearing to determine whether the cases against her will move forward is scheduled for June 18.