law

Retail employees in Los Angeles working irregular schedules, called in for shifts with just a few hours’ notice, got some relief years ago in the form of a city law requiring large retailers to give them notice of their schedules at least two weeks in advance.

Now, that 2024 law could be expanded to encompass the city’s fast-food industry, whose precarious workforce — largely women from immigrant communities — has long raised concerns over unstable schedules that they say make it difficult to plan their finances, child care, medical appointments and other obligations.

The L.A. City Council’s economic development and jobs committee late last month approved the ordinance, which also would establish a mandatory six-hour paid training to educate workers on minimum wage laws and other labor protections. It goes to the full council for a vote on Tuesday.

The proposal is backed by a statewide union of fast-food workers — established in 2024 — that is affiliated with the Service Employees International Union, which for years has helped organize fast-food employee walkouts over wage theft, safety and pay.

The California Fast Food Workers Union‘s organizing director, Maria Maldonado, said workers often are unaware of their rights regarding heat exposure and other risky conditions common in kitchens. The training, she said, would show them they have recourse and city support for reporting employers when conditions are unsafe.

“If you know there is support to enforce the law, we are going to see a difference in the industry,” Maldonado said.

City Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martinez first introduced the ordinance in 2024.

Although worker-friendly proposals usually are ultimately backed by the L.A. City Council, the process often is lengthy, with business interests lobbying against such measures.

The California Restaurant Assn. wrote in a letter to the council that the ordinance would greatly increase costs in a state that already is expensive to operate in and that it unfairly singles out an industry that has long served as a successful pathway to business ownership for minority entrepreneurs.

In the letter, business groups took issue with third parties administering worker training, arguing that labor groups could use them to prime the workforce for union campaigns.

The ordinance would “not only duplicate existing law but also force neighborhood restaurants to pay thousands of dollars so groups with ulterior motives can hold team members as a captive audience,” the letter said.

The group also argued that training would create third-party access to workers’ data even as many immigrant workers are fearful of heightened immigration enforcement, noting that the training might “require employers to disclose sensitive information to outside entities, creating serious privacy risks.”

A report commissioned by McDonald’s, compiled by the firm Beacon Economics and Pepperdine University, surveyed some 1,200 workers in L.A. County and found that a majority, about 70.6%, opposed the proposed paid training, while 29.4% said they would want such training, the survey said.

California’s fast-food industry employs more than 750,000 people and is a growing sector, according to state data. The state fast-food union has argued that local and state protections are crucial.

California is poised to be the first state in the nation to allow people to identify their Jewish heritage on state forms, sparking debate within the community about identity and the merits of being singled out.

Some Jews believe the move would help people understand the community better, particularly on issues such as health and hate crimes. But some are wary about providing too much information given the history of government-sanctioned persecutions against Jewish people.

The state recognizes nearly 50 racial and ethnic identities for data collection, but it considers Jewish identity only as a religion, not an ethnicity.

Senate Bill 1387, which lawmakers passed Aug. 31, seeks to require state agencies to include a box for Jewish ethnicity on all demographic data forms, ranging from public assistance programs to college applications.

The goal is to improve the accuracy of state data to better understand the needs of Jewish communities, according to the bill’s author, state Sen. Henry Stern (D-Los Angeles). The bill, which received broad support in the Assembly and Senate, will head to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk in the coming weeks for a signature or veto.

The proposed law has gone beyond data collection within the Jewish community, prompting discussions and disagreements over whether being Jewish is religious, cultural or a blend of many things. For some, it’s evoked anxiety about the historical dangers of tracking Jews.

Stern doesn’t mind the debate. In fact, he says, it speaks to a core part of Jewish identity.

“I love that the Jewish tradition is us arguing with each other,” he said. “It is such a beautiful part of our heritage to debate these kinds of things and what it means to be Jewish, and I love making space for that.”

California has broadened the list of racial and ethnic categories people can select in recent years. Newsom last year signed a similar bill that created a category for Middle East and North African individuals separate from the “white” designation that had previously encompassed those ethnicities.

California is home to an estimated 1.2 million Jewish people, representing the second-largest Jewish population in the United States after New York. And for most American Jews, Jewish identity is not one size fits all.

“The difficulty here, I think, is that Jewishness doesn’t fit neatly into the categories Americans normally use,” said Jeffrey Kopstein, the chancellor’s professor of political science at UC Irvine. “So, of course, to non-Jews, Jews are often thought of as a religion, but Jewish identity also has historically involved ancestry, culture and peoplehood.

“Many people who are entirely secular nevertheless understand themselves and are understood by others as Jews,” he added.

A Pew Research study published in 2021 found that about 1 in 5 Jews in the United States — roughly 19% of respondents — said that being Jewish is about a combination of religion, ancestry and culture. About 22% said being Jewish is a matter of culture, while 21% said it was a matter of ancestry. About half as many — roughly 11% — said being Jewish is mainly about religion.

The study found that religion is not central to the lives of most Jews living in the United States. Still, identifying as Jewish matters greatly to them, with three-quarters of Jewish Americans saying that “being Jewish” is very important or somewhat important to them, according to Pew.

Jewish California, a Jewish advocacy group that sponsored the bill, wrote in a statement that when Jewish ethnicity is absent from data, disparities in healthcare, education and discrimination are less likely to be identified or addressed. Data collection, it says, “signals to the public how communities are understood.”

“When California recognizes Jews only as a religion, it reinforces a narrow and incomplete understanding of Jewish identity, encouraging the misconception that Jews are defined solely by belief or worship rather than by a rich and distinct culture, history, peoplehood, and shared experience. That misunderstanding leads to generalizations, creating fertile ground for bias and discrimination,” the group wrote in a statement.

But opponents argue that the bill oversimplifies Jewish identity and could potentially make people more of a target for antisemitism, which saw a nationwide surge after the start of the Israel-Hamas war on Oct. 7, 2023.

In 2025, the Anti-Defamation League tallied 6,274 incidents of antisemitism in the United States, down from 9,354 incidents the year prior. Last year’s numbers were still about five times higher than a decade ago, according to the ADL.

Cat Zavis, a rabbi at Beyt Tikkun, told the California Assembly’s Judiciary Committee in June that the bill erases the diversity of Jewish people whose families come from a variety of places including the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia and Europe.

“Jews are not a single ethnicity. Judaism is a religion,” she said. “Many Middle Eastern and North African Jews have spent years working to have their distinct histories recognized. Their stories are not the same as those of Ashkenazi Jews. They have different experiences of displacement, discrimination, privilege and identity. By collapsing all Jews into a single ethnic category, this bill makes those communities invisible.”

Stern says people will still be able to check multiple racial and ethnic identification boxes on forms to encompass all the ways they identify.

Groups have also raised concerns about the government maintaining records on Jews, which is reminiscent for some of the trauma of the Holocaust. In the 1930s, the Nazi government used a variety of forms of public data including tax returns and census records to help identify Jews who would be rounded up and sent to concentration camps where millions were killed.

“History offers a clear warning: when Jewish identity is officially distinguished from that of all other ethnic groups, the results have too often been catastrophic,” the Bay Area chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace, an advocacy organization that bills itself as the largest Jewish group supporting Palestine, wrote in a statement.

Supporters of the bill say identifying as Jewish under the law is strictly voluntary. For Stern, the root of the bill is empowerment.

As a kid growing up in Los Angeles, Stern wasn’t as religious as he is now, but he was still singled out for being Jewish. Other students drew swastikas on his backpack. Antisemitic cartoons appeared in his school newspaper.

“Some stuff happened where I went from being a normal kid blending in to suddenly realizing I had an identity and it was one that was sort of defined by being called out for it,” he said. “Back then, there were no forms on campus, or applying for college, that had an opportunity for me to identify as Jewish, even though I was being identified by other people that way.”

He hopes the proposed law will give people the chance to own their Jewish identity on their terms.

“Maybe this is one place where people who are excellent at disagreeing with each other can all kind of agree that there ought to be a space for us,” he said.

The Federal Communications Commission has asked a judge to toss out ABC’s 1st Amendment lawsuit, arguing that parent company Walt Disney Co. is wrongly attempting to short-circuit the agency’s review into whether the broadcaster has violated the law.

The commission, in court documents, maintains ABC’s lawsuit was premature because regulators simply were in the process of reviewing whether ABC has served the public interest in operating its eight television stations. No final determination has been reached, the FCC argued.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr made the rare move last spring to call for an early review of ABC’s licenses as part of his yearlong look at whether Disney’s diversity and inclusion programs violate anti-discrimination laws.

The Disney-owned station licenses were not set to expire for several years. For example, the license for KABC-TV Channel 7 in Los Angeles extends to 2030.

But the FCC launched the probe a day after President Trump complained about ABC late night comedian Jimmy Kimmel over a joke that upset First Lady Melania Trump.

ABC has taken an aggressive stance, arguing the FCC is wielding its enforcement powers to punish the network after Trump repeatedly agitated to have ABC’s licenses revoked. ABC maintains the FCC’s enforcement action is an attempt to quell the network’s free speech, in violation of the 1st Amendment. It asked a federal judge to issue a temporary restraining order and injunction to halt the FCC’s early station review.

ABC also is fighting an FCC review into whether its daytime talk show, “The View,” should be entitled to an exemption from the so-called equal-time rule for political candidates who appear as guests.

Disney’s lawsuit has enormous 1st Amendment implications.

ABC is the first major broadcaster to challenge the FCC’s enforcement actions since Trump returned to power, joining a small handful of news organizations, including the Associated Press and the Wall Street Journal, that have pushed back against the president’s efforts to bully outlets he dislikes.

In late December, Trump wrote on social media: “If Network NEWSCASTS, and their Late Night Shows are almost 100% negative to President Donald J. Trump, MAGA, and the Republican Party, shouldn’t their very valuable Broadcast Licenses be terminated? I say YES!”

ABC, which did not comment Friday, argued the FCC’s review is “extraordinarily early” and “that timing underscores the Commission’s true purpose: coercing and retaliating against a network that refuses to bow to the Administration’s demands.”

The FCC has scoffed at the broadcaster’s arguments.

“Disney filed a meritless lawsuit in an effort to stop the FCC’s ongoing investigation into allegations that Disney violated the law,” an FCC spokesperson said in a statement. “The FCC has developed a voluminous record, and it will continue to follow the facts and the law wherever they lead.”

The government filed its motion Thursday in Washington. The 46-page document was filed by U.S. Atty. Jeanine Pirro and signed by Assistant U.S. Atty. Dimitar P. Georgiev on behalf of the FCC.

Disney was “not content to let the Commission’s ordinary investigative processes (and, if needed, ordinary processes of judicial review) run their course. They instead ask this Court to halt the license renewal proceeding in its tracks by issuing a preliminary injunction,” the FCC said.

U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan has scheduled an Oct. 6 hearing.

Disney has argued the FCC has gone well beyond an examination of its internal hiring practices — the original purpose of the agency’s review.

But, in its motion, the FCC faulted Disney’s handling of the matter, saying “Disney’s responses to Commission information requests were deficient and nonresponsive,” prompting the agency to escalate the dispute.

In late April, Carr directed the FCC Media Bureau to force ABC to apply for renewal of their licenses early.

“The Commission’s Chairman has repeatedly emphasized that, although the allegations against Disney are serious, he and the agency remain ‘open-minded,’ have ‘not made a decision,’ and are ‘going to follow the facts and the law wherever they [lead],’ ” according to the motion.

The FCC also argued Disney picked the wrong court because Congress stipulated that any review of commission orders should be heard by an appeals court.

If ABC lost its licenses, it would hobble the network by forcing its largest stations off the air. Other ABC stations at risk include those in San Francisco, Fresno, Houston, Philadelphia and New York.

KABC-TV Channel 7 is owned by Disney in Glendale.

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

Trump on Sunday called for the FCC to “rebuke or punish” NBC’s “Meet the Press” anchor Kristen Welker after she pointed out that the president has had mixed success in endorsing political candidates in this election season.

The FCC also has an open investigation against NBC owner Comcast, also looking at the Philadelphia company’s diversity and hiring practices. The FCC has not ruled out calling NBC-owned station licenses in for an early review as well.

Sacramento — Year after year, owners of professional sports teams and developers of proposed skyscrapers have pleaded with California lawmakers to grant relief for their projects from the state’s environmental regulations. They’ve found a largely receptive audience.

“It’s a job creator,” Assemblyman Miguel Santiago (D-Los Angeles) told his colleagues while successfully pressing earlier this month for approval of his bill that could speed up an expansion of Facebook’s headquarters and the construction of twin skyscrapers in Hollywood.

The passage of Santiago’s bill highlighted a continually messy debate at the state Capitol concerning which projects deserve breaks from strictly complying with the California Environmental Quality Act, the primary environmental law governing development. The law, known as CEQA, requires developers to disclose and reduce projects’ effects on the environment, often a time-consuming and costly process made longer by lawsuits that can last years.

Legislators have long talked about overhauling CEQA — Gov. Jerry Brown has called doing so “the Lord’s work” — but the rare measures that advance often only provide relief for deep-pocketed developers or have the backing of Sacramento’s most powerful interests.

Earlier this month, GOP Assemblyman Dante Acosta pushed to ease burdens under CEQA for all housing projects amid the state’s affordability crisis. But his effort was rebuffed in a legislative committee.

“A good project is a good project, whether it’s housing for middle-class Californians or a stadium for millionaire athletes and billionaire owners,” said Acosta, who represents Santa Clarita.

Since its enactment in 1970, CEQA has become a touchstone for environmentalists who credit it for preserving California’s coastline and natural beauty. Its rules are written so broadly that the law also has become a tool for neighborhood preservationists, business competitors, unions and others to oppose a wide-range of projects including some, like bike lanes, that might otherwise seem environmentally friendly.

Housing has become a particular flashpoint. In Acosta’s district, developers have proposed the 21,500-home Newhall Ranch project, which has been stymied by environmental lawsuits during the more than two decades it’s been under consideration. On Monday, some environmental groups reached an agreement to end their lawsuits against the project in exchange for $25 million for conservation efforts and other concessions from the developer.

Developers of low-income homes also struggle with litigation filed by neighborhood groups and others that use the law simply to oppose their projects, but not on environmental grounds, said Ray Pearl, executive director of the California Housing Consortium, which represents such developers.

“CEQA is used as a weapon and the environment is lost in the shuffle,” Pearl said.

This year, bills that passed the Legislature had a common theme: the State Building & Construction Trades Council of California, which represents 400,000 construction workers, supported them.

Santiago’s bill updates an existing law allowing any project that costs more than $100 million to build and meets union-level wage and greenhouse gas reduction standards to aim for a final court decision in any CEQA lawsuit within nine months. The Golden State Warriors used this law for the team’s arena now under construction in San Francisco. Facebook has said it plans to use the law to speed up the expansion of its Menlo Park headquarters. So has Millennium Partners, a New York developer that wants to spend $1 billion to build 500 homes and a 200-room hotel and provide office and retail space around the Capitol Records building in Hollywood.

The housing legislation approved at the end of the legislative session also allows some developers to sidestep the environmental law in limited situations. One bill says cities must approve projects that comply with existing zoning rules without forcing developers through additional CEQA reviews. Two other bills provide cities financial incentives to complete environmental reviews of entire neighborhoods so developers won’t have to do them later for their projects. In all three cases, developers will only qualify if they reserve parts of their projects for low-income residents and abide by union-level pay and hiring rules.

Another bill, authored by Assemblyman Jose Medina (D-Riverside), would block developers from pursuing local ballot initiatives to get their projects approved, a process that allows them to avoid CEQA entirely. That method allowed the Rams to secure approval for their Inglewood football stadium in just six weeks, something unheard of in California development politics.

Cesar Diaz, the building trades’ legislative director, said labor’s involvement in CEQA policy ensures that the profits from growth are shared more widely.

“When you look at environmental standards and look at creating benefits for the economy, the people who benefit shouldn’t just be the developer,” Diaz said. “It should be those building the project.”

How much the environmental law affects housing production is disputed. A recent report from a law firm that promotes overhauling CEQA contended that litigation from 2013 to 2015 challenged more 10,000 homes in Southern California neighborhoods planned for the most growth. A counter report from environmentalists found few projects were sued when compared with the rate of development.

Still, it’s clear the environmental law matters. Backers of a proposed Inglewood arena for the Clippers put forward a last-minute bill that would have given them CEQA relief beyond what many prior professional sports stadium and arena developers have received from the Legislature. The Clippers legislation would have shortened court-decision timelines and limited a judge’s ability to halt construction during any environmental lawsuit against the project, while offering a full CEQA exemption for a transit link between a light-rail stop and the arena.

The Clippers and opponents of the bill — chiefly the owners of the rival Forum arena in Inglewood — each hired an army of lobbyists. The team argued that if the bill didn’t pass, its competitors could drown the proposed arena in CEQA litigation.

The measure stalled in a legislative committee, leaving its author, state Sen. Steven Bradford (D-Gardena), deeply frustrated. In a speech on the final night of the legislative session, Bradford argued that his colleagues have decided to prioritize CEQA relief for projects proposed in wealthier communities, not lower-income neighborhoods with predominantly black and Latino residents.

“There is clearly a double standard and this situation is not just wrong, it’s racist,” Bradford said. “The well-to-do areas of this state are given much more help, and economically disadvantaged areas around the state, such as the areas that I represent, do not receive the same support.”

Brown has pledged to sign the three CEQA-related housing bills as part of a larger package of legislation aimed at addressing the state’s housing problems. He has not commented on the Santiago or Medina bills, but has supported prior versions of the Santiago effort. The governor has until Oct. 15 to approve or veto the legislation.

liam.dillon@latimes.com

Twitter: @dillonliam

ALSO

Facebook and real estate developer pitch state lawmakers on speedier environmental review cases

The housing package passed by California lawmakers is the biggest thing they’ve done in years. But it won’t lower your rent

California bill aims to make it harder for megaprojects to sidestep state environmental law

Updates on California politics

WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court has cleared the way for President Trump to finish building his new White House ballroom with mostly private money and without approval from Congress.

By a 5-4 vote. the justices granted an emergency appeal from Trump and his lawyers on Monday and set aside a judge’s order that would stop the construction.

But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. dissented, along with the court’s three liberals.

The outcome turned on standing.

The conservative majoritysaid the National Trust for Historic Preservation and its members were not personally injured by the White House ballroom project and therefore, did not have to standing to sue Trump or the National Park Service.

They also said Trump and his appointees had stressed the new ballroom was needed for national security and said the lower courts judges should not have interfered.

The decision in effect gives a green light to Trump’s go-it-alone approach which is in keeping with his history as a hotel builder. He believed the White House needed a grand ballroom that could seat hundreds of dignitaries. And he ordered the East Wing torn down in October to make room of his larger ballroom.

He also said most of the project would be paid for by $400 million in private donations.

But the Constitution gave Congress the power to manage property belonging to the United States. A 1912 law says new buildings “shall not erected…on public grounds within the District of Columbia without express authority of Congress.”

Trump chose to ignore the law and did not seek approval from Congress which is led by Republicans.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation sued in December, contending Trump was a “temporary tenant, not the owner” of the White House.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ruled Trump had no authority to build a new ballroom on the White House grounds without the approval of Congress, and he ordered a halt to the above-ground construction.

The D.C. Circuit Court affirmed his decision by a 2-1 vote.
“Congress has not ceded unfettered authority to the Executive Branch to dramatically redesign, reshape, and reconstruct the White House—the People’s House—to fit a particular President’s desires,” wrote Judge Patricia Millett for the appeals court.

Trump’s lawyers sent a fast-track appeal to the Supreme Court on Aug. 14.

The court’s majority allowed Trump to fend off the legal challenge by concluding the historic preservationists could not show they were harmed by a huge new ballroom that may dwarf the historic Executive Mansion.

SACRAMENTO — The California state Legislature voted Sunday to amend a 2019 law that extended the statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse claims but was blamed for draining the coffers of municipalities and school districts.

Senate Bill 577 by John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) follows years of heated debate over the state law, which resulted in scores of lawsuits against cities, counties and schools.

Since the law was enacted, L.A. County has agreed to pay more than $5 billion to settle more than 12,000 claims stemming from alleged sexual abuse committed by government employees in foster homes and juvenile halls.

The bill passed by the Legislature on Sunday requires victims older than 40 to provide evidence that the public entity was aware of the misconduct that resulted in the assault and failed to take reasonable steps to avoid it.

It also states that attorneys who file fraudulent sex abuse lawsuits can be fined $25,000 per violation. The Times reported last year on nine plaintiffs who said they were paid to sue the county over sex abuse, some of whom said they were told to fabricate their claims.

Consumer attorneys, counties and victims rights groups jostled over the elements of the proposed bill over the last few months.

Lawmakers stopped short of capping payouts in the bill, a change sought by some local governments and school districts.

The legislation follows multiple attempts to change the law in recent years. Sen. Benjamin Allen (D-Santa Monica) tried last year to increase the burden of proof for sex abuse cases, but pulled the bill after outrage from victims rights groups.

Some of the groups blasted the bill on Sunday night, arguing it would shield rapists and deny justice to survivors.

Speaking on the floor of the state Senate, Laird said that he tried to balance the needs of all parties.

The bill now goes to Gov. Gavin Newsom for his consideration.

The words “Anaheim Angels” are now enshrined in California law.

Whether the baseball team that calls Angel Stadium home reverts to its hometown name remains to be seen. On Thursday, however, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law the “Home Run for Anaheim Act,” a step that elected officials in Orange County consider a significant step in that direction.

The new law, introduced by Assemblyman Avelino Valencia (D-Anaheim), cleared the state legislature without a single vote against it.

The law does not mandate the Angels — playing under a Los Angeles name in Anaheim’s city-owned stadium — revert to the Anaheim Angels name.

For now, in fact, the law does absolutely nothing. On Friday, the Los Angeles Angels play at Angel Stadium.

Instead, the law provides the city with an incentive to dangle before the team. If the Angels — whether under current owner Arte Moreno or a future owner — wish to develop the 150-acre Angel Stadium property, state law would prioritize affordable housing within the site.

In an era where team owners covet the profits from development around stadiums and arenas — including places for fans to eat, drink and shop 365 days a year, not just on game days — the city of Anaheim could seek an exemption from the affordable housing law. That wouldn’t rule out housing on the site, but it would give a team more flexibility to build whatever project might be considered most profitable.

If the city obtains the exemption, the new law says, “then any materials, including, but not limited to, a lease, deed of sale, and promotional or marketing materials, shall refer to that team as the Anaheim Angels.”

Moreno has twice reached deals with the city to develop the land, only to see the city walk away both times. In the last deal, he rejected the city’s request to rename the team the Anaheim Angels.

“We are proud to call Angel Stadium of Anaheim our home,” Angels spokeswoman Marie Garvey said, “and any other comment about the future would be premature.”

Moreno, 80, has shown no public interest in a third negotiation with the city. The Angels’ current stadium lease extends through 2032, and the team has options to extend the lease through 2038.

By year’s end, the city has said it anticipates the release of a long-awaited property assessment, which is expected to show Angel Stadium needs hundreds of millions of dollars in upgrades to remain viable for the long-term. The city and team may not agree on who should pay for them, and real estate development around the stadium could be part of the solution for funding a new or renovated stadium.

The city could use the exemption as leverage in discussions with Moreno or a new owner, although leverage could work both ways.

When Anaheim sued the Angels over the 2005 name change, city-commissioned experts testified in court that the Anaheim name was worth hundreds of millions of dollars to the city over the life of the lease. That could compel an owner to ask the city to contribute to the cost of building a new stadium in exchange for the return of the Anaheim name.

An almost vacant large urban site — an aging stadium surrounded by 130 acres of parking lots, sitting between three freeways and a train station — is rare in Southern California and surely would attract development interest among potential bidders for the Angels.

But any new owner would have one more bit of leverage: Once the Angel Stadium lease expires, the owner would be free to move out of Anaheim.

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche’s fidelity to President Trump nearly cost him his confirmation. Now comes Blanche’s real test.

Trump’s former personal attorney has stepped into the commanding role facing a challenge that other leaders of the Republican president’s Department of Justice could not overcome: threading the needle between Trump’s boundary-busting demands and a prosecutor’s duty to uphold the rule of law. At the same time, Blanche must try to stabilize a workforce shaken by an exodus of experienced lawyers and an erosion of trust in the judicial branch.

In a wide-ranging interview with the Associated Press during a trip to Puerto Rico this week, Blanche promised to lead the department with integrity, dismissing concerns from critics who say his actions so far — including an indictment against longtime Trump foe and former FBI Director James Comey — call into question whether Blanche is still functioning as Trump’s personal lawyer.

A slew of ongoing politically charged investigations under Blanche’s watch could force him to choose between his long-standing loyalty to the president and the foundational principles of the Cabinet agency he leads. At stake is the fate of a department already reeling under a president who has made clear his desire for retribution over the criminal scrutiny he faced.

“My integrity, my commitment to the rule of law is the same today that it was the day I graduated,” Blanche told the AP when asked where he would draw the line on requests from the White House. “I would never do anything unethical or improper or violate my oath, no matter the circumstances.”

Critics disagree.

As acting attorney general, Blanche came under fire from lawmakers, including many Republicans, for signing off on a $1.8 billion fund meant to compensate Trump’s allies who believed they were politically prosecuted. He also greenlit a deal that granted Trump, the Trump Organization, and two of his sons immunity from tax audits. Those moves, unusual steps aimed at granting the president and his allies far-reaching benefits, put Blanche’s confirmation at risk, prompting key senators to express concern.

Blanche, like Trump’s other attorneys general, walks a tightrope

In the AP interview, Blanche addressed criticism of the department under his leadership, his priorities as attorney general and losses the administration has had in high-profile cases. He also depicted the Justice Department as an institution whose independence had eroded long ago — a characterization at odds with decades of fierce autonomy that challenged the highest echelons of power in Washington and beyond.

Blanche, a former federal prosecutor in New York, is walking the same tightrope as Trump’s three other Senate-confirmed attorneys general. They found their pledges to uphold the rule of law and the department’s ethical norms at odds with the president’s demands to bend the institution to his will.

During Trump’s first term, one attorney general infuriated Trump over his withdrawal from an investigation into Trump’s winning White House campaign and was forced out. Another submitted his resignation weeks after breaking with Trump over Trump’s false claims of election fraud. Blanche’s immediate predecessor, Pam Bondi, was ousted in April after failing to deliver successful prosecutions against the president’s political enemies.

Blanche’s narrow confirmation this month over opposition from two Republican senators underscored growing concerns about the dismantling of the Justice Department’s long-standing tradition of independence from the White House, which is meant to protect the impartiality of politically sensitive investigations and prosecutions.

Concerns that the Justice Department is being weaponized

Blanche bristles at the suggestion that the Justice Department should be independent of the president and he has made clear his view that the executive has both the power and the right to shape and control the law enforcement agency.

He has staunchly defended the integrity of cases the administration has brought against the president’s perceived political opponents, often pointing to his own experience representing Trump in criminal cases brought by Democratic President Joe Biden’s Justice Department. Blanche and the president have characterized those cases as politically motivated.

“I think attorneys general and others have said, ‘Oh, we’re independent.’ I don’t think that’s actually true,” Blanche told the AP.

Blanche claimed the Justice Department was not truly independent when he was a federal prosecutor or during the Biden administration. But that characterization ignores the fact that under Biden, the Justice Department investigated Biden himself over his handling of classified documents and secured felony charges in two separate cases against his son Hunter before Biden pardoned him.

The two criminal cases filed by special counsel Jack Smith against Trump were based on allegations, supported by long-running investigations, that Trump had classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida and obstructed government efforts to get them back, and conspired to overturn the 2020 election.

Growing distrust of the Justice Department among judges

Blanche has sought to highlight the administration’s focus on tackling illegal immigration, violent crime and drug-trafficking cartels, spotlighting cases such as the takedown of a Puerto Rican gang that he announced during his visit to the U.S. island territory.

But Blanche’s policy priorities are often overshadowed by a growing number of investigations that have drawn criticism that the department is being used as a weapon in the president’s campaign of retribution.

Blanche’s supporters have argued that the close relationship he developed with Trump while serving as his criminal defense lawyer can make him more effective at pushing back on or explaining the legal constraints of the president’s demands. Others wonder whether he will fare any better than Bondi up against the same skeptical court system, and factual and legal hurdles, that impeded efforts to deliver the sought-after results.

Blanche is also confronting growing distrust of the Justice Department among judges, who in multiple cases have accused government lawyers of withholding information or misleading courts. Courts in some cases have quashed subpoenas or ordered the review of grand jury transcripts, and the criminal cases against Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James were dismissed after a judge found the prosecutor who brought them was illegally appointed.

But Blanche played down concerns that the erosion of judicial trust could impede his efforts to advance his agenda.

“The isolated incidents that make the news are not reflective of the way the bench feels in my view, or the way prosecutors are doing their job around the country,” Blanche said.

Richer writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Eric Tucker in Washington contributed to this report.

SACRAMENTO — California lawmakers said Thursday that they plan to make “modest” changes to a controversial law that gave victims of childhood sexual abuse a new window in which to sue, but will stop short of a damage cap.

The proposed legislation, offered in the final days of the legislative session, would require older victims to provide additional proof that they were abused as children, but does not limit the amount they could receive in payouts — a demand made by local governments and school districts that have shelled out billions of dollars in recent settlements.

The proposal follows years of heated debate over a 2019 state law that removed the statue of limitations for childhood sexual abuse claims. The law paved the way for thousands of victims to sue their abusers but has been criticized for draining the coffers of local governments.

Since the law was enacted, L.A. County has agreed to pay more than $5 billion to settle more than 12,000 claims stemming from alleged sexual abuse committed by government employees in foster homes and juvenile halls.

Santa Monica last year declared a financial crisis after officials revealed that the city faces more than $229 million in sexual abuse allegation claims from a former city employee. California school districts have paid nearly a half-billion dollars to settle older claims of sexual abuse.

The new bill, known as Senate Bill 577, tweaks a proposal put forward last year by Sen. John Laird (D-Santa Cruz), who tried unsuccessfully to shepherd through a compromise between local government entities, survivors groups and plaintiffs attorneys.

Laird and Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Santa Ana), who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in interviews Thursday that they tried to thread the needle in protecting both survivors and municipalities.

Laird said he’s heard reaction from various groups since the new bill proposal was posted online. The groups are “not totally happy,” Laird said.

“My goal here was to get a situation where [the reaction] was sullen but not mutinous,” said Umberg.

L.A. County, which faces more than 5,000 new claims of sexual abuse, lobbied hard to change the law, arguing it opened the door for fraud as records to vet the cases were long gone. Chief Executive Officer Joseph M. Nicchitta praised the bill Thursday as a “thoughtful and balanced package of reforms.”

“This is a responsible step forward and moves us toward a more stable and sustainable framework, and we urge all public entities seeking reform to accept this solution now,” Nicchitta said in a statement.

The Consumer Attorneys of California, a trial lawyer trade group, backed the fact that the bill wouldn’t limit how much victims could receive from these cases.

“Damage caps would place an arbitrary limit on the harm a survivor has suffered and leave survivors bearing more of the lifelong costs of abuse—including trauma, disability, and treatment,” said Doug Saeltzer, president of the association. “Those costs should not be shifted onto the very people the system failed to protect.”

According to the most recent version of the bill, victims older than 40 must now provide “clear and convincing evidence” that the public entity “knew of misconduct” that resulted in the assault and failed to take reasonable steps to avoid it.

The bill also states attorneys who file fraudulent sex abuse lawsuits can be fined $25,000 per violation, a penalty that could be enforced by the state attorney general or attorneys for local governments. The Times reported last year on nine plaintiffs who said they were paid to sue the county over sex abuse, some of whom said they were told to fabricate their claims.

The bill also requires the attorney general to open a two-part investigation into alleged abuse within L.A. County’s juvenile detention centers, probing both the cause of fraudulent lawsuits as well as legitimate claims of abuse.

And it would also require local governments and school districts to adopt a “sexual assault prevention plan” that details to the attorney general “how grooming and sexual abuse concerns and risks will be reported.”

John Manly, an attorney who represents victims in the $4-billion sex abuse settlement, said he believed the bill would make it impossible to represent victims over 40 years old. The burden of proof, he said, was too high and the language in the bill too vague.

“It’s sad, because it tells me that all the stuff about, ‘We care about children, and we care about survivors, and we believe survivors,’ it’s all political window dressing for many of the members of the Legislature,” he said.

The compromise bill follows multiple attempts to change the law in recent years. Sen. Benjamin Allen (D-Santa Monica) tried last year to increase the burden of proof for sex abuse cases, but pulled the bill after outrage from victims rights groups.

The new version seems unlikely to have the same problem, with some groups immediately praising the lack of fee caps.

“It’s a step in the right direction,” said Chantel Johnson, directing advocate at Youth Law Center, which advocates for youth in foster homes and juvenile detention centers. “The bill was more balanced than we thought it would be.”

Senate Bill 577 is expected to come up for a vote in both the Assembly and the Senate by early next week and, if it passes, will be sent to Gov. Gavin Newsom for his consideration. Leaders in both houses praised the proposal Thursday.

“Today, we are grateful to have been able to come to an agreement on a legislative path to protect justice, prioritize prevention for the millions in our care, and acknowledge the impacts to our communities,” said Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón.

Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) said the state would be “safeguarding schools and public services, while investing in prevention and protecting against future abuse.”

SACRAMENTO — The California legislature passed a bill Wednesday that would require the state to track the use of pesticides that contain perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS chemicals, which can be harmful to humans.

The bill, by Assemblymember Nick Schultz (D-Burbank), heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom, who can sign it into law or veto it.

Schultz’s original bill would have phased out pesticides with PFAs and put California in line with Maine and Minnesota, which passed laws restricting their use.

The state’s powerful agricultural industry objected to the proposed ban. Nearly half of the country’s vegetables and more than three-quarters of its fruits and nuts come from California, according to the state.

The revised bill instead requires the Department of Pesticide Regulation to flag which pesticides have PFAs in its public state database.

The vast majority of PFAS chemicals have not been tested for human health effects, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Studies show that exposure to certain levels of PFAs may lead to decreased fertility and developmental delays in children and increase the risk of cancers.

State regulators and environmental groups disagree on the definition of the chemicals, making it difficult to find a consensus on regulations.

The European Union has prohibited 23 of the PFAS pesticides in use in California, including bifenthrin, trifluralin and flufenacet, according to Environmental Working Group, a sponsor of Schultz’s bill.

Schultz expressed disappointment after his bill was changed this summer but said Thursday that the remaining regulations are “a vital step toward ensuring California’s agricultural legacy is defined by health and innovation, not by the accumulation of toxic PFAS in our soil and water.”

“We need to help our farmers transition away from these persistent chemicals so that California can be a global leader in food safety,” he added.

Dolly Parton may be gone, but her spirit of self-expression is still making waves — this time in a Texas federal court.

U.S. District Judge David Hittner on Tuesday cited the late artist in his decision to strike down Senate Bill 12, a 2023 law that sought to restrict drag shows. His decision, which blocks the Texas attorney general from enforcing the law, noted that the prohibition was “an unconstitutional restriction on speech.”

Just as many people “chastised Dolly Parton as a voluptuous sex symbol because of her big hair, flamboyant clothes and breast exposure … there are erotic elements in countless popular performances that could be subject to both civil and criminal penalties under S.B. 12,” Hittner wrote in his decision.

And because the law doesn’t specify who determines whether a performance “appeals to the prurient interest” or that the work be considered as a whole, a single sexual or erotic moment in a performance could result in penalties, he wrote. Those penalties include civil fines of up to $10,000 for businesses and a misdemeanor charge that carries up to a year in jail for participating individuals.

Hittner’s decision came down on the same day Parton, the 80-year-old legendary songwriter, actor and businesswoman, died following a brief battle with cancer.

Parton was referenced several times in court records associated with the case. One of the plaintiffs, Brigitte Bandit, a drag queen and longtime activist, frequently performs as the Grammy-winning artist.

In an Instagram post on Tuesday, Bandit wrote that Parton had been a “huge influence” on her life and her drag performances. She even brought a children’s book about Parton to testify at the Texas Capitol, which eventually got back to the country music star, who then gifted Bandit a signed rhinestone-covered guitar.

“Dolly has shaped much of my life as a drag artist,” Bandit wrote on Instagram, calling her a “queen who has changed the world with her love, artistry, and GLAM! my diva forever.”

After the 2016 mass shooting at Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla., Parton called herself a “patron saint” of the gay community in an interview with Billboard.

“All those drag queens, sometimes I see some of them look more like me than I do,” said the star, who famously lost a Dolly Parton lookalike contest.

Tuesday’s ruling wasn’t the first time the law, widely touted as a “drag ban,” has been deemed unconstitutional by the courts.

Hittner initially struck down the law in September 2023, just a few months after the Texas Legislature passed it. In November 2025, a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the lower court’s injunction and returned the case to district court with instructions on how to reconsider it.

In the end, the high court’s directions did not change Hittner’s determination that the law violates the 1st and 14th amendments.

Hittner wrapped up his decision with a suggestion for those who oppose or are offended by the performances: “[T]he solution is relatively simple … just don’t go.”

A decade-long fight to outlaw child marriage in California is nearly at an end.

A bi-partisan bill that makes it illegal to issue marriage licenses to anyone under 18 cleared the state Assembly on Wednesday, drawing cheers from supporters who said the measure was a long overdue fix to an “archaic” piece of California law.

“The issue has evolved now because we have better stories, we have better data. We have a growing national movement … marriage is really something that can be reserved for consenting adults,” said Assemblymember Gail Pellerin (D-Santa Cruz).

The bill — whose chief authors include Republican Assemblywoman Diane Dixon and Democrats Caroline Menjivar and Cottie Petrie-Norris — glided through the state Senate and Assembly without major opposition. It now heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk.

Until the bill is signed into law, California remains one of three states in the U.S. without a minimum age to get married or enter into a domestic partnership. While the state has guardrails on the marriage process for minors, requiring them to gain judicial approval and the consent of at least one parent before receiving a license, advocates say children can still be easily pressured to wed by their parents or religious groups.

“All we’re doing with any judicial review process … is putting the onus on a terrified child,” said Fraidy Reiss, the founder and executive director of Unchained At Last, an advocacy group working on legislation to end child marriage across the U.S.

There were 88 marriage licenses issued in California where at least one party was a minor between 2019 and 2025, according to data collected by the state Department of Public Health. Some of those marriages involved weddings between girls as young as 15 and men in their 30s, according to a Senate analysis of the bill. In L.A. County, 51 licenses were issued to minors between 2014 and 2025, according to the county Registrar’s office.

“Even if the numbers are relatively small every child deserves protection,” Pellerin said. “And we don’t want to wait for a problem to become so widespread before we start protecting children.”

A 2020 study by the International Center for Research on Women shows underage marriages can have devastating long-term impacts on young girls.

“Marrying early has universally detrimental effects over a range of outcomes, including educational attainment; earnings; physical, reproductive, and mental health; experiences of violence; and likelihood of divorce, particularly for girls,” the study found.

Although consensual sex between a person over 18 and someone under that age is still considered statutory rape under California law, sex between those same two people becomes legal if they are married. Reiss said the state’s law allowing underage unions was essentially a shield for sexual abusers.

“It destroys almost any aspect of a girl’s life and it doesn’t deliver any benefit,” she said. “The only benefit it brings is to creepy guys who want to prey on teenage girls.”

The American Civil Liberties Union filed an opposition letter against the measure in June, warning the bill could have an unintended consequence of removing a minor’s autonomy over their own body.

“Just as minors have the right to decide to have an abortion or to carry a pregnancy to term (or to seek a restraining order) on their own, they should maintain the right to marry, with robust protections in place to prevent coercion and abuse,” the ACLU wrote.

But Pellerin, who previously served as Santa Cruz County Clerk, said it was the memory of a pregnant teen that helped push her to fight for the bill. She recalled issuing a marriage license to a 16-year-old girl and man in his late teens or early 20s, and felt that the girl’s parents were forcing them to wed.

Under California law at the time, Pellerin said, she had no evidence of coercion or force so she had no choice but to process the license. She hopes once Newsom signs the bill, no young girl will have to go through that again.

“I’m often haunted by that look on her face,” Pellerin said. “My kid is out at soccer practice and this girl is in here, pregnant, scared to death, signing up for a lifetime commitment.”

If signed into law by Newsom, the new minimum marriage age would take effect January 1, 2027.

Aug. 25 (UPI) — An internal government watchdog said Tuesday that a Federal Emergency Management Agency crew violated the Hatch Act when it skipped houses with signs supporting President Donald Trump during Hurricane Milton recovery efforts in 2024.

The report comes from the inspector general’s office of the Department of Homeland Security. Officials determined that crew skipped 11 homes in Florida with Trump signs.

This “eroded public trust in FEMA’s ability to treat everyone impartially, offer unbiased and consistent assistance and ensure equal access to resources and tools,” the report said.

The Hatch Act, first passed in 1939, limits certain political activities by federal employees to make sure they’re administered in a nonpartisan way.

Trump has called for abolishing FEMA, later trying to downsize it and providing limited aid to states. The Office of the Special Counsel also found in 2025 that the same 2024 actions violated the Hatch Act.

Christopher Logan, FEMA associate administrator, said it no longer takes part in “FEMA-led door-to-door outreach efforts” and that agency staff now provides support “from fixed locations determined by state and local officials,” The Hill reported. Logan also said that after the 2024 case, FEMA gave staff mandatory Hatch Act and ethics training.

Michael Cohen, FEMA’s chief of staff at the time, told The Hill that the report reinforces that the “violations were not systematic and were isolated.” He said FEMA took appropriate action.

The Trump administration has also been accused of making disaster aid related to political leanings. Politico reported in March that it’s three times more difficult for Democrat-led states to obtain disaster aid for residents under the Trump administration.

The administration has also been accused of violating the Hatch Act, including in messaging on government websites.

The amended law was an attempt by state Republicans to crack down on unproven claims of voting by noncitizens.

A United States federal court has temporarily blocked an Ohio law that required proof of US citizenship from residents who wanted to register to vote while they obtained a driver’s license.

In his ruling on Tuesday, US District Judge Solomon Oliver Jr granted a preliminary injunction against the law, saying it likely violates the US National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) because it requires more information than necessary to determine a resident’s eligibility to vote.

“Election officials do not need documentary proof of citizenship to assess a voter registration applicant’s citizenship because signed attestation of citizenship is enough,” Oliver wrote.

The judge also pointed to a clause in the act that says each US state’s driver’s license application “shall serve as an application for voter registration with respect to election for Federal office unless the applicant fails to sign the voter registration application”.

Oliver said that Ohio must offer applicants the opportunity to register once they’ve submitted their driver’s license application, not after it’s been approved by the state’s Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV).

“To interpret this section of the NVRA otherwise would allow States to make registering to vote at the BMV more onerous, and could result in fewer voter registrations because the opportunity to apply was not proactively offered to otherwise eligible citizens,” Oliver added.

In 1995, Ohio passed a so-called “motor-voter” law that allowed residents the opportunity to register to vote when they applied for a driver’s license

But that law was amended last year by the state’s Republican-controlled legislature in an attempt to crack down on unproven claims, pushed in part by US President Donald Trump, that noncitizens were voting in the state’s election. US law prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections.

The ruling marks a victory for voting rights advocates like Red Wine & Blue, which sued Ohio’s secretary of state, Frank LaRose, over claims that the law disenfranchised eligible voters and violated the NVRA.

One of the group’s lawyers, Ben Stafford, praised the ruling, calling it “a win for Ohio voters.”

“With the registration deadline just weeks away, eligible Ohioans will now have the opportunity to register to vote at the BMV without having to produce unnecessary paperwork that is not required by federal law,” Stafford, an attorney at Elias Law Group, said in a statement.

LaRose said his office disagrees with the decision and will appeal.

Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco is not lazy, I’ll give him that.

During his unsuccessful run for governor this year, you may recall that the MAGA devotee found time to seize more than 650,000 ballots from the Proposition 50 redistricting race, claiming he suspected there were tens of thousands more votes cast than there should have been — a favorite (and false) complaint of election deniers.

There were not.

Undaunted by reality, and likely law, Bianco announced he was going to have his deputies recount the votes, even though this kind of interference in the chain of custody of ballots never had occurred anywhere in the United States.

This unprecedented seizure of ballots — something election-denier-in-chief President Trump has been hinting at trying himself for years — quickly became a national news story, and a national concern.

With midterms looming and more than one MAGA sheriff out there, what would stop another conspiracy-minded, badge-wearing maverick from doing something similar this November, potentially throwing our national election into turmoil?

The specter of Bianco setting a precedent for like-minded conspiracists to follow prompted two significant lawsuits — one led by the election experts at the UCLA Voting Rights Project and the other from state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta.

The state Supreme Court heard arguments in those cases Monday, and while we’ll have to wait for the official rulings, things did not seem to go well for the sheriff.

What surprised me most, or maybe just relieved me, was how thin Bianco’s arguments were to support his actions. In the end, his legal team came with little more than contortions and cartwheels, trying to twist Bianco’s overreach into existing law.

His lawyer, Bradley Hertz, attempted to argue that legislators, when crafting laws protecting ballots, meant different rules to apply to investigations of elections preceding formal prosecutions. If that sounds confusing, it’s because it is.

Hertz seemingly was trying to convince the court that Bianco legally could pull his shenanigans as long as he didn’t actually find criminal wrongdoing, which would trigger a different set of rules.

“That seems bizarre,” Justice Goodwin H. Liu said during a back-and-forth with Hertz.

Indeed.

But it was Justice Joshua Groban who hit at the national implications of what Bianco had done — and what it could mean for the midterms if this court ruled in his favor.

“It seems like under your broad view of the warrant power … the sheriff could could seize ballots even before election day, right?” Groban asked. “Even before they were counted.”

It’s terrible to have ballots seized after they’re counted. It’s devastating if they were to be taken before there was an official tally, because how would anyone trust that there hadn’t been tampering? Simply seizing uncounted ballots, no matter what happens next, would create such paranoia and uncertainty that the election results almost certainly would be called into question — something that could play into the favor of, say, a wannabe authoritarian who fears he’s likely to lose a fair vote count.

Even Hertz seemed to acknowledge such a scenario was bad.

“If search warrants were allowed during the election or preelection, that would obviously wreak havoc,” he said. “There would be, kind of, a cat out of the bag, so to speak. You can’t count ballots if they’re not in the possession of the registrar.”

But then Hertz tried to come up with logic that what Bianco was arguing wouldn’t mean that ballots could be seized anytime, anyhow, and that instead courts could find a way to allow seizing only after the official count. The court did not seem convinced that this was a good idea, or that that is what the law should or did allow.

If that case didn’t go well for Bianco, it was the second case brought by Bonta that really might end up being a hard loss.

For years, decades really, in California and across the country, there has been a group of sheriffs who have argued they are a law onto themselves because they are elected, not hired or appointed. Some of these sheriffs argue that they are literally above federal law.

In California, there has at times been momentum to rein in this line of thinking by creating clear boundaries in law, but the state Legislature always has backed down in the face of opposition from law enforcement.

One potential curb on sheriffs’ power comes from a single line in our state Constitution that seems to say the state attorney general has supervisory power over them. But the meaning and power of this particular clause has long been debated and seldom invoked.

Bonta, however, invoked it against Bianco, claiming the the sheriff had to back off the ballot-seizing because Bonta had authority to order him to stop. Bianco did stop, to his credit. But the standoff was heard by the court Monday and likely will force clarity on an issue that has long lacked it.

Here again, the justices seemed amenable to Bonta’s argument that sheriffs, at least to some extent, answer to him as the state’s chief law enforcement officer. But the justices seemed far more cautious on this issue, and even the state’s attorney conceded that “it’s actually pretty remarkable how little our Constitution says about county sheriffs.”

If Bianco loses on this issue, it would be huge. It would mean that Bianco not only overstepped his power by seizing the ballots, but that he also had forever lessened the power of California sheriffs by clarifying they do answer to the attorney general. I’m sure that will be very popular with other sheriffs.

We’ll see what the justices say, but at least it seems likely that this embarrassing chapter of California election history will end in favor of the law, and democracy.

Maybe Bianco really does believe his conspiracy theories. After all, “there are some people who believe they had breakfast with Elvis on Sunday,” pointed out Chad Dunn, who argued the case for the Voting Rights Project.

“We can’t satisfy them,” Dunn warned.

More importantly, we shouldn’t — even when they wear a badge. Our laws already have robust protections for elections, and rogue sheriffs aren’t one of them.

Fox News co-host Emily Compagno is jumping from the network’s daytime chatfest “Outnumbered” to join “The Five,” the most-watched program on cable news.

The conservative-leaning news network announced Monday that Compagno will fill the seat vacated last year by Jeanine Pirro, who left “The Five” in May to join the Trump administration as interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia before her Senate confirmation three months later.

Compagno will be on daily starting Sept. 8 alongside fellow co-hosts Greg Gutfeld, Dana Perino and Jesse Watters. Jessica Tarlov and Harold Ford Jr. rotate their appearances in the lone liberal seat on the program.

“Emily is a highly accomplished host whose energy and talent have made her a standout across FOX News Media, and we are thrilled to officially welcome her to the show,” Fox News Media Chief Executive Suzanne Scott said in a statement.

Compagno’s chair on “Outnumbered” will have guest co-hosts after she departs the program.

“The Five” has been a ratings juggernaut for Fox News in recent years, scoring audience levels that rival live viewing for hit broadcast network shows. In the second quarter of this year, “The Five” averaged 3.6 million viewers according to Nielsen, capturing more than 64% of the cable news viewing audience in the 5 p.m. Eastern hour.

Before joining Fox News as a contributor in 2018, Compagno practiced law in criminal defense and civil litigation and later served as a federal managing attorney and Acting Director at the Social Security Administration.

She also served as a Senior Judge Judicial Extern for the late Hon. John T. Noonan at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

A native of the San Francisco Bay Area, Compagno served as captain of the cheerleading squad for the NFL’s Raiders when they played in her hometown before moving to Las Vegas. She served as an ambassador for the league overseas, visiting U.S. troops in Iraq and Kuwait on a USO tour.

She is also the author of “Under His Wings: How Faith on the Front Lines Has Protected American Troops,” which was released on the network’s publishing imprint FOX News Books and debuted at No. 1 on the New York Times bestseller list.

Reporting from Washington — Jared Kushner may finally get a win.

President Trump’s son-in-law has been a drag on the administration for his friendship with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman since the Oct. 2 killing of a U.S.-based dissident Saudi journalist. His family business continues to raise questions of conflicts of interest, he repeatedly has amended financial disclosure reports to remedy omissions, and he endured an embarrassing yearlong delay in obtaining a security clearance. Meanwhile, his chief assignment, a Mideast peace plan, is as elusive as ever.

Lately, however, Kushner has been instrumental in helping his father-in-law secure a rare bipartisan victory: a long-sought overhaul of the criminal justice system.

Both Republicans and Democrats who’ve worked on the bill in Congress credit Kushner as a key architect. He helped convince the two most powerful Republicans in Washington — his father-in-law and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, both of whom embrace the traditionally Republican tough-on-crime stance — to make the criminal justice system less punitive.

The bill cleared a procedural hurdle in the Senate on Monday evening, 82 to 12, a vote margin that belies the arduous effort to overcome initial opposition from conservatives. Final Senate passage is expected later this week and the legislation is expected to easily get through the House and to the White House for Trump’s signature.

Called the First Step Act, the legislation would undo some of the sentencing crackdowns of the 1990s and create programs to reduce prisoner recidivism.

It would allow low- and minimum-risk prisoners to earn time credits for early release to either reentry centers or home confinement; reduce some mandatory minimum sentences, including those imposed by so-called three-strikes laws that automatically result in life imprisonment; and allow reviews of sentences that reflect significant disparities between harsh punishments for crack cocaine use, which disproportionately involve minorities, and lesser penalties for powder cocaine.

Kushner, driven by the experience of his father’s 14-month prison sentence for tax evasion and other crimes, has made prison and sentencing changes a priority since the beginning of the Trump administration. But unlike loftier goals Kushner has embraced, such as peace between Israel and Palestinians, criminal justice reform is likely to be signed by the president.

Kushner helped work on policy details and knew where the political fault lines would be, according to lawmakers. He was on the phone repeatedly with other advocates to discuss strategy and next steps. He personally lobbied senators, including McConnell, who openly was not eager to make time for a Senate vote. And he served as a bridge to conservative media, which could have blown up the effort with even a whiff of opposition.

“There would be some very outspoken right-wing [opponent] and [Kushner] would tell me, ‘I called him this morning. I straightened him out and now he’s going to be OK,’” said Democratic supporter Sen. Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, declining to name the commentator. “I’m thinking, ‘Who would have dreamed that a bill I’m cosponsoring would be OK with this person?’”

Advocates of the criminal justice overhaul tried to pass a similar bill at the end of the Obama administration, only to be stymied by congressional Republicans. They had little hope of getting it through during the Trump administration given the president’s campaign rhetoric on crime, including a call to execute drug dealers, and because of the fierce opposition of his first attorney general, Jeff Sessions.

“This is a president that ran on American ‘carnage,’” said Jessica Jackson, a Mill Valley, Calif., City Council member who started the advocacy group #cut50 with liberal CNN host and commentator Van Jones. “I thought everything was over.”

“I’m a Democrat,” Jackson said, but “Jared is politically brilliant and he’s relentless and he’s also extremely loyal. If he tells you he’s going to do something, he does it.”

Kushner started early. He made his support for criminal justice changes known to the leaders of the bipartisan congressional effort — including Durbin, the Senate’s second-ranking Democrat, and Republican Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee — within weeks of Trump’s inauguration.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), another architect of the plan, knew Kushner was taking the issue seriously when Kushner started dropping “the very precise nomenclature thrown around by criminal justice reform geeks” — for example, citing the relevant U.S. criminal code lines by their numbers.

While Kushner’s initial goal was prison reform, which is an easier sell with conservatives, it quickly became clear that had to be paired with sentencing reform to get the backing of Grassley and Durbin.

Perhaps the biggest obstacle was McConnell’s reluctance to bring up a bill that would unify Democrats and divide Republicans, handing the opposition a potential political cudgel in the 2020 campaign. He told a group of Republican advocates in September that he would bring the bill to the Senate floor only if it was endorsed by Trump and they secured 65 votes — five more than the minimum number needed to overcome procedural roadblocks.

Given the goal, Kushner relentlessly lobbied reluctant Republican senators to get on board, according to sources familiar with the discussions.

He called “everybody — and often,” said Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Senate Republican, whose late endorsement was part of a groundswell that made clear that enough Republicans would support the legislation. “He was dogged.”

On numerous occasions he lobbied McConnell directly, even trying to figure out the Republican leader’s dinner companions so that he could lobby them before their meal.

Advocates of the First Step Act also rallied high-profile celebrity supporters, such as Kim Kardashian West, which demonstrated to the media-obsessed Trump the positive publicity he could get. Kushner worked with Jones, and eventually got support from celebrities including Alyssa Milano and former Fox News host Eric Bolling.

“Jared Kushner absolutely was one of the main conduits,” Bolling said.

The dam broke this month when Trump tweeted “go for it, Mitch” and several noteworthy conservatives backed the bill, including Sens. Cornyn, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Ted Cruz of Texas.

Lee, the Republican senator allied with Kushner, said: “One of the things I’ve appreciated about him is he doesn’t cut corners with this. I haven’t seen him abuse the position of trust as the president’s son-in-law. He doesn’t throw that around.”

Everyone in Washington knows Kushner’s trusted place in the Trump orbit; members of Congress return his phone calls and know he speaks for the president, at least as much as anyone can. Yet when Vice President Mike Pence came to a meeting of Senate Republicans to lobby on the bill last month, Kushner was deferential; attendees said he sat in the room but barely said a word.

The bill does have significant critics. Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and John Kennedy (R-La.) argue that it could allow dangerous criminals to get early release, and have proposed a series of amendments that could get votes this week. Still, passage is considered all but certain.

The latest from Washington »

jennifer.haberkorn@latimes.com

@jenhab

Caracas, August 22, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan National Assembly unanimously approved on Friday the Law on the Promotion and Protection of Housing Construction, a reform establishing updated rules for the construction and commercialization of residential properties.

The legislation, which replaces the Law Against Real Estate Fraud from April 2012, consists of four chapters and 40 articles establishing rules for purchase and sale contracts, construction company responsibilities, and oversight mechanisms under the Ministry of Housing and Habitat.

“This is a law that protects real estate developers and companies dedicated to housing construction while also protecting homebuyers so they can gain access to housing quickly and preventing any situation that undermines their right to acquire a home,” National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez said on social media.

The initiative was backed by opposition parties alongside the ruling United Socialist Party (PSUV). COPEI deputy Miguel Salazar stated that the legislation creates “great expectations” and “strengthens the legislative ecosystem that protects the real estate sector.”

The law has been sent to Acting President Delcy Rodríguez for final approval before being published in the National Gazette.

The newly endorsed legislation establishes a series of conditions for real estate developers to meet before beginning to pre-sell housing units, including proof of land ownership, municipal approval of the preliminary project, and mechanisms to protect funds contributed by buyers.

The law also establishes a unified registry for real estate projects and provides a financial protection mechanism. Funds deposited through an escrow arrangement may only be released once the development has obtained the corresponding permits. Companies must also detail the characteristics of the homes and the construction schedule in each contract.

The law also establishes fines for delays in submitting documents, permit failures, non-compliance with regulations, and violations of preventive measures, among other offenses.

At the same time, the legislative project establishes incentives for private sector constructors such as greater flexibility to set prices, an end to a prior existing 24-month deadline for completing certain projects, and modified conditions benefiting sellers should buyers fail to make payments.

The bill also eliminated the lending banks’ liability in case the real estate project is not completed. For buyers, the change removes one of the parties they could potentially hold accountable in case the purchased home is not delivered.

Venezuelan authorities have moved to improve conditions for private real estate companies and landlords in the wake of the 7.2 and 7.5 earthquakes that struck Venezuela on June 24, leaving some 17,900 people homeless, particularly in La Guaira state. On July 14, National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez estimated that 25,000 homes would be needed to accommodate those who lost their houses.

The government has assigned 335 apartments to displaced families since the earthquake. Acting President Rodríguez has pledged to deliver 4,000 homes before December and reach 10,000 by the end of 2027. Venezuelan authorities have likewise created a credit program for housing purchases and provided loans to condominium boards for repair works.

The legislative initiative favoring real estate developers came on the heels of the Residential Property Lease Law approved on July 31. Authorities presented the project’s goal as improving conditions for landlords to put their properties on the market.

The law allows landlords and tenants to freely and independently establish contractual terms and rental rates and sidelines the state’s housing superintendency SUNAVI. The bill allows rents to be paid in national or foreign currency and establishes a three-month rent limit for deposits.

In addition, landlords and tenants have access to multiple mediation mechanisms, including conciliation centers, arbitration, the intervention of local peace justices, or municipal court proceedings. Tenant organizations had recently denounced recurrent landlord practices of bringing trespassing criminal charges as a way to force evictions.

At the same time, the new law acceded to a long-time demand from real estate lobbies in fast-tracking evictions. Landlords can rescind the rental agreement if tenants are two months behind on rent, have illegally sublet the property, or have given it a different use than the one agreed to, among other conditions.

The 2011 law regulating housing leases, which was approved by former President Hugo Chávez and is highly protective of tenant rights, remains valid for existing contracts, while all rentals signed in the future will be governed by the new law. However, local media have reported on a spate of evictions after the new law was enacted.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

A federal judge in New York has vacated a Trump administration policy that suspended the processing of visas from 75 countries, including Afghanistan, Iran, Russia and Somalia, whose nationals the Trump administration deemed likely to require public assistance in the United States.

U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas, an appointee of President Biden, described the policy Friday as “contrary to law and in excess of statutory authority.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio exceeded his authority by issuing the policy, which “runs afoul” of the Immigration and Nationality Act by mandating “the refusal of visas to eligible applicants without any basis in law,” the judge ruled.

Power lies with consular officers, judge says

Vargas said the policy also undermines the congressional requirement that puts consular officers at the forefront of any visa decision.

“Congress imbued these officers with exclusive authority and discretion to determine if an immigrant is eligible for a visa based upon review of specific and detailed criteria set forth in the statute,” she wrote. “The Policy, which categorically prohibits the issuance of immigrant visas based upon the nationality of the applicant, represents a direct abrogation of this statutory scheme.”

The policy was challenged by two nonprofit organizations along with 11 individuals, including six whose family members had been refused visas. The remaining five are outside the country and had filed “employment-based petitions” to come to the United States.

‘This case is about keeping families together,’ advocate says

“We welcome this ruling because, at its heart, this case is about keeping families together,” said Anna Gallagher, the executive director of CLINIC, a national nonprofit that provides training, resources and support to a network of immigration legal service providers and was one of the plaintiffs.

“Catholic social teaching calls us to uphold the dignity of every person and recognize the family as the foundation of society,” she said in a statement. “This decision affirms both those values and the rule of law, allowing families to once again move forward toward reunification.”

Another plaintiff is African Communities Together, a Harlem-based nonprofit. One of its leaders called the ruling “a tremendous victory for the rule of law.”

“This unlawful and racist ban caused immeasurable harm, cruelly keeping families and loved ones apart,” Diana Konate, deputy executive director for policy and advocacy, said in a statement. “Today, we are elated to tell our community members: this ban is no more.”

Trump expands anti-immigration agenda

President Trump has imposed a growing list of immigration and travel bans mostly for people from Africa, Asia and Latin America. The State Department said Saturday that the Trump administration is “protecting the American people by upholding the highest standards of screening and vetting of visa applicants,” and that it would not comment on pending litigation.

At the time the policy was issued, the State Department said it had instructed consular officers to halt immigrant visa applications from the 75 countries in accordance with a broader order in November that tightened rules around potential immigrants who might become “public charges.”

Relying on Council of Economic Advisors data, the State Department said that more than 30% of households with immigrants from these countries received some form of public assistance.

A separate notice sent to all U.S. embassies and consulates said that non-immigrant visa applicants also should be “fully vetted and screened” for the possibility that they might seek public benefits in the United States.

The cable, a copy of which was obtained by the Associated Press, noted several times that the applicant must prove they won’t apply for public benefits while in the U.S., and that consular officers who suspect the applicant might apply should require them to fill out a form proving their financial bona fides.

The ruling is the latest example of the courts upending Trump’s immigration agenda.

In June, a federal judge struck down a Trump administration policy that made it harder for immigrants from dozens of countries to enter and stay in the United States — affecting elements including asylum, work permits, green cards and citizenship applications. That judge said the policy threw countless immigrants’ lives “into indeterminate legal limbo,” and accused the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services of ignoring the law.

Casey writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Immigration and Customs Enforcement is taking more and more steps to avoid oversight by local and state authorities of immigration detention centers amid growing complaints alleging unsanitary and unsafe conditions at the facilities.

The efforts to sidestep laws in California and elsewhere take many forms. In some instances, contracts have been changed to declare that the centers are simply not subject to certain local or state laws.

In other instances, ICE has purchased facilities owned and operated by private companies. Though the companies continue to run the centers holding thousands of detainees, federal ownership could aid their defense in the event of legal action.

George Zoley, the chief executive of GEO Group, which contracts with ICE to run detention centers in California and across the country, said as much to company shareholders this year. In an earnings call in May, he said that ownership bolsters the facilities’ protection from “unwarranted litigation” around medical care and other detention conditions.

The federal ownership strategy has become particularly crucial, he said, “as some blue states are considering more active involvement in oversight of facilities.”

Local oversight has taken on greater significance since the Trump administration hollowed out federal offices that were charged with investigating civil rights and safety issues at detention centers and began restricting visits by members of Congress. A recent analysis by the Project on Government Oversight found detention center inspections under the second Trump administration have increasingly resulted in “superior” grades.

Eunice Cho, a former American Civil Liberties Union attorney and an expert in immigration detention, called ICE’s efforts a “naked strategy” to evade local scrutiny of detention centers.

“This is a huge sea change in the way that immigration detention is expanding and hardening in the United States,” she said, adding that “this was every advocate’s nightmare scenario.”

In California, state leaders once attempted to shut down privately run detention centers and, after losing, resorted instead to proposing other oversight measures. California is home to eight ICE detention centers with a combined capacity of nearly 9,000 people.

State laws allow monitoring and investigation of the facilities by the California Department of Justice and local health authorities.

A 2021 law allows people to sue for damages when private detention center operators fail to follow the care standards laid out in their contracts. Starting in January, another law will require independent medical investigations into deaths in law enforcement custody, including in immigrant detention facilities.

Several bills are being considered by the California Legislature that would further regulate detention centers. Among them are bills that would authorize the California attorney general to bring civil action and impose fines to protect detainees’ constitutional rights and require the disclosure of public records, such as 911 calls from the facilities.

Recent attempts to limit California’s oversight actions haven’t been successful. CoreCivic turned San Diego health inspectors away from the Otay Mesa Detention Center in February, but after legal action the visit took place in June.

Another oversight battle concerns the rights of detainees who work at a facility, perhaps as a janitor, for $1 per day.

GEO Group recently settled with California regulators after a years-long fight over workplace health and safety violations. The settlement affirmed that immigrants who perform work while detained are considered employees.

Weeks earlier, ICE released new detention standards in June declaring that detainees who participate in the voluntary work program aren’t employees “and are not entitled to wages or benefits under applicable wage laws or labor regulations.”

Because the new standards will take effect as contracts are established or modified, the rules don’t yet apply to existing facilities in California, though they were implemented at a new facility in Minnesota.

An ICE spokesperson did not respond to questions but said the agency consulted with a variety of stakeholders, including facility operators, while revising its standards. The spokesperson, who did not provide their name in an emailed statement, said the agency consistently looks for ways to improve detention facilities to ensure they provide detainees the best care.

“ICE is regularly audited and inspected by external agencies to ensure that all ICE facilities comply with performance-based national detention standards,” the spokesperson wrote, adding that “ICE has higher detention standards than most U.S. prisons that hold actual U.S. citizens.”

An oversight battle involving changes to contracts is also playing out in other states.

For the last three years, GEO Group has blocked Washington health officials from inspecting the Northwest ICE Processing Center near Seattle despite 3,500 complaints from detainees about black mold, unsafe drinking water and substandard medical care.

A previous contract for the facility stated that services must comply with “federal, state and local laws and standards. Should a conflict exist between any of these standards, the most stringent shall apply.”

But in March, ICE and GEO Group established a new contract that says the opposite — that “applicable or more stringent state or local laws or regulations shall not apply.”

A federal district judge, rejecting that contract provision, ruled last month that GEO Group must let health inspectors in, writing that “GEO’s new contract cannot preempt state law, even if it purports to.” That decision is now paused under appeal.

But this week, GEO Group had a court victory in Colorado, where a federal judge prevented the state from enforcing a law that requires unannounced public health inspections of detention facilities and stiff penalties for refusal. Colorado health officials wanted to investigate a tuberculosis case at the Aurora ICE Processing Center near Denver, but have been refused entry and records.

The judge wrote that GEO Group’s contract with ICE “plausibly” requires the company to follow only state laws that existed when the contract was signed. At GEO Group’s suggestion, the judge’s order remains in effect until Oct. 15, when the contract expires.

Meanwhile, ICE appears to be trying a different route to apply the same restrictive contract language to the facilities near Seattle and Denver, among others.

Last month, the agency posted a solicitation with draft contract terms seeking 5,500 detention beds in Colorado, Florida, Pennsylvania and Washington. The locations and requirements match four existing GEO-owned facilities where operating contracts are set to expire in the coming months. During a shareholder call earlier this month, Zoley, the GEO Group CEO, indicated that the four facilities could also be sold off to the federal government while the company would continue to operate them.

The facilities would be governed by the new 2026 detention standards and include terms that mirror those from the Northwest facility’s contract, that stricter state or local laws “shall not apply.”

Zoley said ICE is contemplating buying more than 10 facilities, and that number “could continue to grow.”

GEO Group’s main competitor, CoreCivic, recently sold four detention centers to ICE — two of them in California — for a combined $2.2 billion. Spokesman Ryan Gustin said the facilities were valuated using independent appraisers and federal acquisition standards “to determine objective fair market value.”

ICE paid for them using $45 billion approved by Congress for ICE detention last year, enough for the agency to meet the administration’s goal of 100,000 detention beds. ICE is about 30,000 beds shy of meeting that goal.

Among more than 200 facilities ICE now relies on nationwide (most being local jails) are 36 privately owned detention centers. Those facilities hold the vast majority of detainees.

A Homeland Security spokesperson previously told The Times that it’s crucial for ICE to own detention centers on the West Coast so the agency can maintain the detention capacity it needs.

“Unlike in states like Florida and Oklahoma, ICE can not rely on local state and county partners for detention space in California,” the spokesperson said last month. “The state’s sanctuary politicians continue to push legislation to outlaw or make private prisons financially [unfeasible].”

GEO Group didn’t respond to a request for comment. Gustin, of CoreCivic, said its facilities operate under substantial government oversight, including “on-site government personnel, regular audits and inspections, detention-standard reviews, independent accreditation processes, and routine visits by government officials, attorneys, families and community representatives.”

How much power the federal government would be required to grant states is an open question if more facilities become federally owned, even if private companies continue to run the day-to-day operations.

Claire Trickler-McNulty, a former Homeland Security official who led efforts to reform detention standards, said federal ownership of detention facilities isn’t, on its face, a bad idea. If the goal was to own facilities that would be needed long term, she said, the agency could slowly transition to staffing those facilities with its own employees and cut out the need for private contractors.

Trickler-McNulty said federal ownership of detention centers could make state oversight “slightly more complicated.” But that doesn’t mean the centers can be operated without any review.

“I don’t think it shields the government from liability in total,” she said. “If the government owns a facility whose negligence causes harm or death in the government’s custody, I don’t think you can just buy away liability.”

SACRAMENTO — A state lawmaker from San Diego has proposed fast-tracking the construction of an arena and housing project, drawing criticism from opponents who argue the site is not suitable for large-scale development because of flooding.

State Sen. Akilah Weber Pierson (D-La Mesa) wrote a letter last week to a powerful Assembly chair that outlines proposed amendments to Senate Bill 344 to help Midway Rising, a project backed by Los Angeles Rams owner Stan Kroenke, avoid potential lawsuits related to its environmental review.

“As amended, SB 344 would deem the Midway Rising Specific Plan Subsequent Environmental Impact Report to be in full compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA,” Weber Pierson wrote to the Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco, chair of Assembly Rules Committee.

“In order to promote the swift and deliberate development of affordable housing in the City of San Diego, an urgency clause is needed for this measure.”

Developers are seeking to replace the decades-old Pechanga Arena, and build a new 16,000-seat facility, 4,254 homes, including up to 2,000 affordable units, and commercial and outdoor space. The site is south of Mission Bay.

Parts of the development could rise to a maximum height of 25 stories, according to project’s environmental impact report.

Sports teams, including minor league hockey team the San Diego Gulls, play at the Pechanga Arena. The arena is surrounded by parking lots, which are used for weekend swap meets.

The Assembly Rules Committee on Monday approved an urgency clause to Senate Bill 344, which mean it needs a 2/3 vote of both houses to pass and would go into effect immediately upon the governor’s signature.

Weber Pierson told the Times Monday that the amendments intended to help Midway Rising “haven’t crossed” the desk, meaning that the language hasn’t been inserted into Senate Bill 344. If the amendments go into the bill, “then at that point, I think we can have a conversation,” she said.

Brad Termini, the chief executive of Zephyr, one of Midway Rising’s development partners, said the proposed legislation “will help prevent frivolous lawsuits from causing unnecessary delays and keep the project on track to break ground next year, accelerating the delivery of much-needed housing in San Diego.”

The Kroenke Group didn’t immediately provide comment. Kroenke, the owner of the Rams, was announced as the major investor in Midway Rising in 2023.

Former San Diego Assemblymember Lori Saldaña, a longtime critic of the proposal, called the proposed amendments “reckless and rushed.”

“It removes the opportunity for the public and organizations to weigh in,” said Saldaña.

State lawmakers routinely carve out environmental exemptions for proposed sports stadiums, sometime in the closing days of the legislative session. The legislature has until the end of August to pass or reject scores of bills.

Former Senate Leader Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) led his colleagues in passing a bill in 2013 that helped the Sacramento Kings arena by limiting environmental lawsuits. The new arena for the Golden State Warriors basketball team in San Francisco also benefited from CEQA reforms passed by state lawmakers in 2011.

The landmark 1970 legislation is credited with helping to protect the state’s environment, but it is also criticized for blocking development.

Since it passed, the CEQA has been a consideration in how most major projects get approved in California. The law requires the disclosure of any effects a development might have on the environment, an evaluation of alternatives and, in many cases, proposed changes that would reduce those environmental effects to a level of insignificance.

Weber Pierson also previously authored Senate Bill 958, another bill that will help the arena, that is awaiting a vote in the Assembly.

That bill states that the environmental impacts of a project that are associated with increased building height, including noise, shadows, or the potential to attract wildlife, shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment.

The bill only applies to specific developments, including those that are proposed on an graded infill site and those that pay construction workers a prevailing wage.

Weber Pierson said that SB 958 “is not special-interest legislation” during a Aug. 9 public forum about the project, describing it a broad-based housing tool, according to the Peninsula Beacon.

The publication reported that the forum “got testy at several points, with some audience members openly booing” the speakers.

Eric Law, chairman of the Penisula Community Planning Board, criticized the state senator’s proposed amendments in an interview Monday.

“The continued efforts to push legislation specific to Midway is misguided and unneeded,” said Law, whose group provides input to the city on planning issues.

Law said his group isn’t opposed to development, but wants the city to stick to the current three-story limit for the area.

“We absolutely endorse the idea of redevelopment — that place is kind of an armpit,” Law said of Pechanga Arena. “They need affordable housing and better housing — you just don’t need to do it over 30 feet.”

The San Diego City Council still needs to approve the project.

Saldaña said the developers are ignoring the growing sea-level rise that is causing nearby street flooding.

Saldaña said she was out Tuesday night in the area with volunteers from community planning groups, including Law, and witnessed groundwater “literally coming up and flooding the streets.”

“Not a drop of rain had fallen,” she said. “It’s just the higher sea level pushing the groundwater to the surface.”

Weber Pierson told the Times that Saldaña should bring her concerns about flooding to the developer and city officials.

Aug. 17 (UPI) — A group of Texas families are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a challenge to a state law that requires public schools to post a version of the Ten Commandments in a visible spot in every classroom.

The more-than-two-dozen families of various religious faiths and none are appealing a lower court’s decision in April to uphold Senate Bill 10. The families are from 22 school districts throughout the state and are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Texas, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Freedom from Religion Foundation.

“Texas politicians shouldn’t have a seat at the table in deciding how our children receive their religious education,” said plaintiffs Rebekah and Ted Lowe of Austin, who are raising their children in Christian and Jewish religious traditions. “This law puts one version of religious beliefs above all other in our public schools and sends a message to our children that what we teach them about religion at home is somehow wrong.”

“I’m not only worried about my own kids, but I’m deeply concerned about all the children in my congregation,” said plaintiff Rabbi Joshua Fixler of Houston. “These displays put children in the position of having to defend themselves and their families’ religious beliefs against a government mandate that makes them feel different and separate from their classmates.”

In April, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law does not violate the First Amendment’s establishment clause — which prevents the government from establishing a religion — or free exercise clause — which forbids government from prohibiting “free exercise” of religion.

“This is a major victory for Texas and our moral values,” said Ken Paxton, Texas’s Republican attorney general, after the ruling. “The Ten Commandments have had a profound impact on our nation, and it’s important that students learn from them every single day.”

However, in its release on the request Monday, the ACLU noted that a Supreme Court case in 1980 — Stone vs. Graham — already dealt with the matter of the Ten Commandments in public schools. In that case, the high court found that a Kentucky law requiring the Ten Commandments to be posted in every public-school classroom was unconstitutional and violated the establishment clause.

In the filing Monday, the lawyers for the families involved said the court should again reject the idea of government-imposed religion.

“If the permanent, unavoidable imposition of biblical scripture in public-school classrooms does not interfere with, or threaten to undermine, parents’ ability to direct their children’s religious education and ot instill particular religious beliefs and practices, it is difficult to imagine what would,” the filing said.