lawyer

The lights never dimmed and Angel Minguela Palacios couldn’t sleep. He pulled what felt like a large sheet of aluminum foil over his head, but couldn’t adjust to lying on a concrete floor and using his tennis shoes as a pillow.

He could smell unwashed bodies in the cramped room he shared with 40 detainees. He listened as men, many of them arrested at car washes or outside Home Depots, cried in the night for their loved ones.

Minguela, 48, lay in the chilly downtown Los Angeles ICE facility known as B 18 and thought about his partner of eight years and their three children. In his 10 years in the United States, he had built a secure life he had only dreamed of in Mexico, ensconced in their humble one-bedroom rented home, framed photos of the family at Christmas, his “#1 Dad” figurine. Now it was all falling apart.

The morning of Aug. 14, Minguela had been on his last delivery of the day, dropping off strawberries to a tearoom in Little Tokyo. He didn’t know that Gov. Gavin Newsom was holding a news conference there to inveigh against President Trump’s efforts to maintain control of the U.S. House of Representatives through redistricting in Texas. U.S. Border Patrol agents were massing nearby, creating a show of force outside the event.

As they moved in, one agent narrowed in on Minguela’s delivery van. Soon, he was in handcuffs, arrested for overstaying a tourist visa. As his lawyer put it, Minguela became “political, collateral damage.”

Over the six days he spent in B 18, a temporary immigration processing center, Minguela watched as several detainees chose to self-deport rather than remain in detention.

A building marking is painted on a wall at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility known as “B 18.”

(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

”No aguanto aqui,” the men would say. “I can’t take it here.”

The harsh conditions, Minguela said, felt intentional. He knew he needed to stay for his family. But he wondered if he’d make it.

::

Minguela fled Mexico in 2015, driven in part by violence he faced there.

In his time servicing ATMs in Ciudad Juárez, he said he was kidnapped twice and at one point stabbed by people intent on stealing the cash. After his employers cut staff, he lost his job, helping drive his decision to leave.

Minguela came to Texas on a tourist visa and left the same day to L.A. drawn by the job opportunities and its many Spanish speakers. He had little money, rented a room as he searched for employment and soon found a job at the downtown produce market.

He met the woman he calls his esposa, who asked not to be named for fear of retaliation, at the second job he worked in the Piñata District. They are not married but Minguela helped raise her two children and later their son, who is autistic. The children — 15, 12 and 6 — all call him Dad.

With Minguela there, his esposa said she never felt alone. He helped with the laundry and cleaning. He played Roblox with his middle son and helped his 15-year-old daughter with her homework, especially math.

“He would always make sure that we would stay on track,” his daughter said. “He would always want the best for us.”

Photos captured the life they had built in L.A. The family in San Pedro for a boat ride. Celebrating Father’s Day and birthdays with cake and balloons. At a Day of the Dead celebration on Olvera Street downtown.

Angel Minguela Palacios with his partner of eight years and their 6-year-old son.

(Carlin Stiehl/Los Angeles Times)

When immigration raids began in June, their lives suddenly narrowed. Minguela rarely went out, leaving the house only for work and errands. His daughter would warn him if she heard rumors of immigration officers near her high school, so he wouldn’t risk picking her up.

Minguela planned ahead, made copies of his keys and left money for his family in case he was grabbed by immigration agents. But he never expected it would happen to him.

On Aug. 14, his alarm went off at 1:15 a.m., as it did almost every day. He drank the coffee his wife had brought him as he headed to the produce market, where he’d worked for the same company for eight years.

Minguela helped take orders of strawberries, raspberries and blueberries, before heading out to make deliveries around 8 a.m. He had around half a dozen places to hit before he would call it a day.

His partner called to warn him that she’d seen on social media that ICE officers were near one of his delivery spots. He had just been there and luckily missed them, he said.

He was relieved that the Little Tokyo tearoom was his last stop. It didn’t open until 11 a.m. He arrived 10 minutes after. He found a parking spot out front and began unloading the boxes of strawberries and one box of apples.

Minguela was adjusting wooden pallets in the van when he heard a knock. He turned to see a Border Patrol agent, who began asking him about his legal status. Rather than answer, Minguela said he pulled a red “know your rights” card out of his wallet and handed it to the agent.

Angel Minguela Palacios took this image of a federal agent looking at his identification outside of the Japanese American National Museum on Aug. 14.

(Angel Rodrigo Minguela Palacios)

The agent told him it was “of no use” and handed it back. As he held his wallet, Minguela said the agent demanded his license. After running his information, Minguela said, the agent placed him in handcuffs.

::

Inside B 18, the lights never turned off. No matter the hour, officers would call detainees out of the room for interviews, making it difficult to get uninterrupted sleep, Minguela recounted. The temperature was so cold, family members dropped off sweaters and jackets for loved ones.

The detainees were given thin, shiny emergency blankets to sleep with. He described them as “aluminum sheets.” As the days passed, he said, even those ran out for new detainees. The bathrooms were open-air, providing no privacy. Detainees went days without showering.

The conditions, he said, felt intentional. A form of “pressure to get people to sign to leave.”

Department of Homeland Security officials have previously told The Times that “any claim that there are subprime conditions at ICE detention centers are false.”

When Minguela closed his eyes, he saw the faces of his family. He wondered how his esposa would keep them afloat all alone. He wanted to believe this was just a nightmare from which he would soon awaken.

He replayed the morning events over and over in his head. What if he had gotten to Little Tokyo five minutes earlier? Five minutes later?

“Those days were the hardest,” Minguela said. “My first day there on the floor, I cried. It doesn’t matter that you’re men, it doesn’t matter your age. There, men cried.”

The men talked among themselves, most worrying about their wives and children. They shared where they’d been taken from. Minguela estimated that around 80% of people he was held with had been detained at car washes and Home Depot. Others had been arrested while leaving court hearings.

Minguela said he’d only been asked once, on his second day, if he wanted to self-deport. He said no. But he watched as several others gave up and signed to leave. Minguela hoped he’d be sent to Adelanto, a nearby detention center. He’d heard it might be harder to get bond in Texas or Arizona.

On the sixth day, around 4 a.m., Minguela and more than 20 others had been pulled out of the room and shackled. He only learned he was going to Arizona after overhearing a conversation between two guards.

It felt, Minguela said, “like the world came crashing down on me.”

The 25 detainees were loaded onto a white bus and spent around 10 hours on the road, before arriving at a detention center near Casa Grande. When Minguela saw it for the first time, in the desert where the temperature was hitting 110 degrees, he felt afraid. It looked like a prison.

“Ay caray, adonde nos trajeron,” he thought. Wow, where did they bring us?

::

There were around 50 people in Minguela’s wing. His cell mate, an African immigrant, had been fighting his asylum case for five months, hoping to get to his family in Seattle.

For the first time since his youth, Minguela had time to read books, including Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s “No One Writes to the Colonel.” He read the Bible, taking comfort in Psalm 91, a prayer of trust and protection. He took online courses on CPR, computer skills and how to process his emotions.

But all the distractions, he said, didn’t change the fact that detainees were imprisoned.

“Lo que mata es el encierro,” Minguela said. “What kills you is the confinement.”

Angel Minguela Palacios spent more than a month in immigration detention.

(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

Almost everyone there, Minguela said, had arrived with the intention of fighting their case. There were detainees who had been there for a year fighting to get asylum, others for eight months. Some had been arrested despite having work permits. Others had been scammed out of thousands of dollars by immigration lawyers who never showed up for their court hearings. Many decided to self-deport.

If he wasn’t granted bond, Minguela told his partner he feared he might do that in a moment of desperation.

Minguela lay in his darkened cell, reflecting on moments when he had arrived home, tired from work and traffic, and scolded his children about minor messes. About times he’d argued with his wife and given her the silent treatment. He made promises to God to be an even better husband and father. He asked that God help his lawyer on his case and to give him a fair judge.

Minguela had his bond hearing Sept 9. He was aided by the fact that he had entered the country lawfully, providing the judge the ability to either grant or deny him bond.

Alex Galvez, Minguela’s lawyer, told the judge about his client’s children. He pointed out that Minguela didn’t have a criminal record and was gainfully employed, the primary breadwinner for his family. Galvez submitted 16 letters of recommendation for his client.

Angel Minguela Palacios beams at his 6-year-old son.

(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

When the government lawyer referred to Minguela as a flight risk, Galvez said, the judge appeared skeptical, pointing out that he’d been paying tens of thousands of dollars in taxes for the last 10 years.

The judge granted a $1,500 bond. Minguela’s employers at the produce company paid it. When Minguela was pulled out of his cell on the night of Sept. 17, the other detainees applauded.

“Bravo,” they shouted. “Echale ganas.” Give it your all.

::

A crowd of people waited to greet Minguela as soon as he stepped off a Greyhound bus at Union Station in downtown L.A. on Thursday night. His partner and their three children all wore black shirts that read “Welcome Home.”

Minguela’s employer, Martha Franco, her son, Carlos Franco, and her nephew held “Welcome Back” balloons and flowers.

“He’s coming,” the children cried, when the bus groaned to a halt at 9:35 p.m. When Minguela spotted the waiting crowd, he beamed. His youngest son jumped up and down with anticipation as he stepped off the bus.

“Estas contento,” Minguela asked the boy. “Are you happy?”

• Share via Close extra sharing options

He held his esposa tight, kissing her on the cheeks, the forehead and the lips.

Minguela knows his release is just a step in the journey. His lawyer plans to file for cancellation of his removal and hopes to secure him a work permit. Minguela said he wants other immigrants to know that “there’s hope and not to despair.”

“Have faith,” Minguela said.

When Minguela arrived home after 10 p.m., he clasped his face in surprise as he was greeted by more than a hundred red, gold and black balloons. Signs strung up around the living room read “God loves you” and “Welcome home we missed you so much.”

His partner had decorated and bought everything to make ceviche and albondigas to celebrate his return. But she hadn’t had time that day to cook. Instead, she bought him one of his favorites in his adopted home.

An In-N-Out Double-Double burger and fries.

WASHINGTON — President Trump appealed to the Supreme Court on Thursday seeking to fire Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook from the independent board that can raise or lower interest rates.

The appeal “involves yet another case of improper judicial interference with the President’s removal authority — here, interference with the President’s authority to remove members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors for cause,” wrote Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer.

The appeal is the second this month asking the court to give Trump broad new power over the economy.

The first, to be heard in November, will decide if the president to free to impose large import taxes on products coming into this country.

The new case could determine if he is free to remake the Federal Reserve Board by removing a Democratic appointee who he says may have broken the law.

Trump’s lawyers argue that a Fed governor has no legal right to challenge the president’s decision to fire her.

“Put simply, the President may reasonably determine that interest rates paid by the American people should not be set by a Governor who appears to have lied about facts material to the interest rates she secured for herself—and refuses to explain the apparent misrepresentations,” Trump’s lawyer said.

Trump has chafed at the Federal Reserve board for keeping interest rates high to fight inflation, and he threatened to fire board chairman Jay Powell, even though he appointed him to that post in 2018.

But last month, Trump turned his attention to Cook and said he had cause to fire her.

Congress wrote the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 intending to give the central bank board some independence from politics and the current president.

Its seven members are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, and they serve staggered terms of 14 years, unless “removed for cause by the president.”

The law does not define what amounts to cause.

President Biden appointed Cook in 2023 and she was confirmed to a full term.

In August, however, Bill Pulte, Trump’s director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, alleged Cook committed mortgage fraud when she took out two housing loans in 2021. One was for $203,000 for a house in Ann Arbor, Mich., and the second was for $540,000 for a condo in Atlanta. In both instances, she signed a loan document saying the property would be her primary residence.

Typically, borrowers obtain a better interest rate for a primary residence. But lawyers say charges of mortgage fraud are extremely rare if the borrower makes the required regular payments on the loan.

About 30 minutes after Pulte posted his allegations, Trump posted on his social media site: “Cook must resign. Now!!!”

Cook has not responded directly to the allegations, but her attorneys pointed to news reports which said she told the lender her Atlanta condo would be a vacation home.

Trump, however, sent Cook a letter on Aug. 25. “You may be removed, at my discretion, for cause,” citing the law and Pulte’s referrral. “I have determined that there is sufficient cause to remove you from your position,” he wrote.

Cook filed a suit to challenge the decision. She argued the allegations did not amount to cause under the law, and she had not been given a hearing to contest the charges.

U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, a Biden appointee, agreed she made a “strong showing” the firing was illegal and blocked her removal.

She said Congress wrote the “for cause” provision to punish “malfeasance in office,” not conduct that pre-dated her appointment. She also said Cook had been denied “due process of law” because she was not given a hearing.

The U.S. appeals court in Washington, by a 2-1 vote, refused to lift her order on Monday.

Judges Bradley Garcia and J. Michelle Childs, both Biden appointees, said Cook had been denied “even minimal process — that is, notice of the allegation against her and a meaningful opportunity to respond — before she was purportedly removed.”

Judge Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee, dissented. He said “for cause” removal provision was broader than misconduct in office. It means the president may remove an officer for “some cause relating to” their “ability, fitness, or competence” to hold the office, he said.

And because a government position is not the property of office holders, they do not have a “due process” right to contest their firing, he said.

Southern California Edison hasn’t accepted responsibility for igniting the Eaton fire, but it is now offering each victim who lost their home hundreds of thousands of dollars, according to a draft of its planned compensation program.

The owner of a 1,500-square-foot home destroyed in the wildfire, given as an example in the company’s draft, would receive $900,000 to rebuild. In addition, the utility is offering that owner an additional $200,000 for agreeing to settle their claim directly with Edison.

The family of each destroyed home would also get compensation for pain and suffering — $100,000 for each adult and $50,000 for each child, according to the draft.

Edison announced in late July that it was creating a program to directly compensate Eaton fire victims to help avoid lengthy litigation. The Jan. 7 fire destroyed more than 9,400 homes and other structures in Altadena and killed at least 19 people.

Pedro Pizarro, chief executive of Edison International, the utility’s parent company, said in a press release Wednesday that the compensation program for victims was “designed to help them focus on their recovery.”

The company said that it would hold four community meetings to get public comments on the proposed compensation plan, the first scheduled for Thursday at 7 p.m.

“While the investigation continues, inviting input on draft details is the next step in helping the community rebuild faster and stronger,” Pizarro said.

Edison said it had hired consultants Kenneth Feinberg and Camille Biros, who both worked on the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, to help create the program.

“The proposed fund is designed as an alternative to conventional litigation in the courtroom,” said Biros. “The terms and conditions are completely transparent and voluntary. No claimants or their lawyers are required to participate until and unless they are satisfied with the compensation offer.”

Private lawyers representing Eaton fire victims have urged caution. They say similar programs created by utilities to compensate victims of other wildfires resulted in lower payouts than families received through lawsuit settlements.

In court, Edison already faces dozens of lawsuits filed by Eaton fire victims. Settling those lawsuits is expected to take years. Attorneys bringing the cases on behalf of victims would get 30% or more of the eventual settlement amounts.

Edison’s draft protocol lists proposed payments for people who were injured, renters who lost their belongings and businesses that lost property or revenues when they were forced to close.

Among the payments to the families of those who died would be $1.5 million for pain and suffering and other noneconomic damages, according to the draft. Each surviving spouse and other dependent would receive an additional $500,000.

In addition, the family who lost a loved one would receive a direct claim premium — a bonus for settling directly with Edison — of $5 million, according to the plan.

Edison said the direct claim premiums — which include $200,000 for families who lost their home, $10,000 to those whose homes were damaged, as well as other amounts for other victims — were only available through its program and would not be offered in litigation.

The utility said victims don’t need an attorney to apply for the compensation. But it is also offering to add 10% to the damage amounts, excluding the direct claim premiums, to cover legal fees of those who have a lawyer.

Victims will get their compensation offers within nine months of applying, Edison said. The company said it was also offering victims a “fast pay” option where they could receive their financial settlement offer within 90 days.

“Speed in processing claims is essential,” Feinberg said.

Edison has said that the government’s investigation into the fire could take as long as 18 months. Pizarro said in April that a leading theory was that a century-old transmission line that had not been in service since the 1970s somehow became reenergized and sparked the fire.

If Edison’s equipment is found to have caused the blaze, the company would be reimbursed for the cost of amounts it pays to victims by a $21 billion state fund. The fund was created by lawmakers in 2019 to shield utilities from bankruptcy if their equipment ignites a catastrophic fire.

The public must register to attend the meetings at ce.com/directclaimsupdates. The final meeting is at 7 p.m. on Monday.

The Los Angeles City Council on Wednesday approved a fivefold increase to its contract with a law firm that drew heated criticism for the invoices it submitted in a high-stakes homelessness case.

Three months ago, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher billed the city $1.8 million for two weeks of legal work, with 15 of its attorneys billing nearly $1,300 per hour. By Aug. 8, the cost of the firm’s work had jumped to $3.2 million.

The price tag infuriated some on the council, who pointed out that they had approved a three-year contract capped at $900,000 — and specifically had asked for regular updates on the case.

Despite those concerns, the council voted 10-3 Wednesday to increase the firm’s contract to nearly $5 million for the current fiscal year, which ends in June 2026. Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky supported the move, saying Gibson Dunn’s work has been “essential to protecting the city’s interests.”

“At the same time, we put new oversight in place to ensure any additional funding requests come back to council before more money is allocated,” said Yaroslavsky, who heads the council’s budget committee.

Councilmembers Tim McOsker, Adrin Nazarian and Nithya Raman voted against the contract increase.

McOsker, who also sits on the budget committee, said he was not satisfied with Gibson Dunn’s effort to scale back the amount it is charging the city. After the council asked for the cost to be reduced, the firm shaved $210,000 off of the bill, he said.

“I think Gibson should have given up more, and should have been pressed to give up more,” McOsker said after the vote.

A Gibson Dunn attorney who heads up the team that represents the city did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Meanwhile, an aide to City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto welcomed the council’s vote.

“We are pleased that the City Council recognizes and appreciates the strong legal representation that Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher has provided and continues to provide to the city,” said Karen Richardson, a spokesperson for Feldstein Soto, in a statement.

Gibson Dunn was retained by the city in mid-May, one week before a major hearing in the case filed by the L.A. Alliance for Human Rights, a nonprofit group that has been at odds with the city over its handling of the homelessness crisis since 2020.

The city reached a settlement with the L.A. Alliance in 2022, agreeing to create 12,915 homeless shelter beds or other housing opportunities. Since then, the L.A. Alliance has repeatedly accused the city of failing to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement.

In May, a federal judge overseeing the settlement called a seven-day hearing to determine whether he should take authority over the city’s homelessness programs from Mayor Karen Bass and the City Council, and hand them over to a third party. Alliance lawyers said during those proceedings that they wanted to call Bass and two council members to testify.

In the run-up to that hearing, the city hired Gibson Dunn, a powerhouse law firm that secured a landmark Supreme Court ruling that upheld laws prohibiting homeless people from camping in public spaces.

Feldstein Soto has praised Gibson Dunn’s work in the L.A. Alliance case, saying the firm helped the city retain control over its homelessness programs, while also keeping Bass and the two council members off the stand. She commended the firm for getting up to speed on the settlement, mastering a complex set of policy matters within a week.

Feldstein Soto initially hoped to increase the size of the Gibson Dunn contract to nearly $6 million through 2027 — only to be rebuffed by council members unhappy with the billing situation. On Wednesday, at the recommendation of the council’s budget committee, the council signed off on nearly $5 million over one year.

A portion of that money will likely go toward the filing of an appeal of a federal judge’s order in the LA Alliance case, Feldstein Soto said in a memo.

Faced with lingering criticism from council members, Feldstein Soto agreed to help with the cost of the Gibson Dunn contract, committing $1 million from her office’s budget. The council also tapped $4 million from the city’s “unappropriated balance,” an account for funds that have not yet been allocated.

By transferring the money to the Gibson Dunn contract, the council depleted much of the funding that would have gone to outside law firms over the current budget year, said McOsker, who called the move “bad fiscal management.”

Raman, who heads the council’s homelessness committee, said her dissenting vote wasn’t about the price of the services charged by Gibson Dunn, but rather the fact that so much was spent without council approval.

“As someone who is watching that money very closely, I was frustrated,” she said. “So my ‘no’ vote was based on that frustration.”

HONOLULU — Dodgers star Shohei Ohtani and his agent, Nez Balelo, moved to dismiss a lawsuit filed last month accusing them of causing a Hawaii real estate investor and broker to be fired from a $240-million luxury housing development on the Big Island’s Hapuna Coast.

Ohtani and Balelo were sued Aug. 8 in Hawaii Circuit Court for the First Circuit by developer Kevin J. Hayes Sr. and real estate broker Tomoko Matsumoto, West Point Investment Corp. and Hapuna Estates Property Owners, who accused them of “abuse of power” that allegedly resulted in tortious interference and unjust enrichment.

Hayes and Matsumoto had been dropped from the development deal by Kingsbarn Realty Capital, the joint venture’s majority owner.

In papers filed Sunday, lawyers for Ohtani and Balelo said Hayes and Matsumoto in 2023 acquired rights for a joint venture in which they owned a minority percentage to use Ohtani’s name, image and likeness under an endorsement agreement to market the venture’s real estate development at the Mauna Kea Resort. The lawyers said Ohtani was a “victim of NIL violations.”

“Unbeknownst to Ohtani and his agent Nez Balelo, plaintiffs exploited Ohtani’s name and photograph to drum up traffic to a website that marketed plaintiffs’ own side project development,” the lawyers wrote. “They engaged in this self-dealing without authorization, and without paying Ohtani for that use, in a selfish and wrongful effort to take advantage of their proximity to the most famous baseball player in the world.”

The lawyers claimed Hayes and Matsumoto sued after “Balelo did his job and protected his client by expressing justifiable concern about this misuse and threatening to take legal action against this clear misappropriation.” They called Balelo’s actions “clearly protected speech “

In a statement issued after the suit was filed last month, Kingsbarn called the allegations “completely frivolous and without merit.”

Ohtani is a three-time MVP on the defending World Series champion Dodgers.

“Nez Balelo has always prioritized Shohei Ohtani’s best interests, including protecting his name, image, and likeness from unauthorized use,” a lawyer for Ohtani and Balelo, said in a statement. “This frivolous lawsuit is a desperate attempt by plaintiffs to distract from their myriad of failures and blatant misappropriation of Mr. Ohtani’s rights.”

Lawyers for Hayes and Matsumoto did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Three days after President Trump publicly accused Sen. Adam Schiff of committing mortgage fraud, an attorney for Schiff wrote privately to the Department of Justice that there was “no factual basis” for the claims — but “ample basis” to launch an investigation into Bill Pulte, the Trump administration official digging into the mortgage records of the president’s most prominent political opponents.

“We are disturbed by the highly irregular, partisan process that led to these baseless accusations; the purposeful, coordinated public disclosure of these materials containing confidential personal information, without regard to the security risks posed to the Senator and his family; and Mr. Pulte’s role in this sordid effort,” attorney Preet Bharara wrote in the July 18 letter reviewed by The Times.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency, where Pulte serves as director, did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday.

A Justice Department spokesperson said Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi has directed Ed Martin — a Trump loyalist and director of the department’s “Weaponization Working Group” — to “commence a probe” into criminal referrals from the housing agency, and Martin “will make public statements regarding the matter when appropriate.”

Trump previously nominated Martin — a Missouri lawyer and conservative activist with no prosecutorial experience — to serve as the U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C. However, Schiff, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, placed a hold on Martin’s nomination, and it was ultimately withdrawn amid a lack of support from Republican senators.

Bharara outlined several reasons why he believed the president’s allegations against Schiff are without merit, and attached a copy of a letter from Schiff to the mortgage lender on his home near Washington, D.C, that Bharara said proved Schiff had been “completely transparent” about listing both that home and a unit in his home district in Burbank as primary residences in mortgage documents.

Schiff’s simultaneous designation of two different homes as primary residences was the basis for Trump’s allegations and for Pulte’s referral of the matter to the Justice Department for criminal review.

Bharara blasted Pulte as “a Presidential appointee who seems to have made it his mission to misuse the power of his office to manufacture allegations of criminal conduct against the President’s perceived political adversaries,” and advised top Justice Department officials to not become complicit in such a politically motivated campaign.

“You should decline Mr. Pulte’s invitation to join his retaliatory harassment of Senator Schiff,” Bharara wrote to Bondi and Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche. “Instead, Mr. Pulte’s misuse of his position should be investigated by a nonpartisan Inspector General to determine whether Mr. Pulte’s conduct should be referred to the Department of Justice for criminal investigation.”

Democrats have questioned the legality of Pulte’s probes into several of Trump’s political opponents, including Schiff, who led a House impeachment of Trump; New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James, who has led investigations into and lawsuits against the president; and Lisa Cook, a Federal Reserve governor who has voted to maintain federal interest rates rather than reduce them as Trump has demanded.

Pulte has lodged different allegations against each, but at their core is the claim that they all misrepresented facts in mortgage documents to secure favorable tax or loan terms, including by listing more than one home as their primary residence at the same time.

Trump cited the claims against Cook as reason to remove her from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, which she is challenging in court. Critics have condemned the move as a partisan attack designed to allow Trump to wrest control of the economy away from the independent Federal Reserve.

Pulte has downplayed or ignored reporting by ProPublica that several of Trump’s own Cabinet members have made similar housing claims in mortgage and other financial paperwork, and reporting by Reuters that Pulte’s father and stepmother have done so as well. Additional Reuters reporting on eight years of court data found that the federal government has only rarely brought criminal charges over misstatements about primary residence in mortgage records.

With Schiff, who is a former prosecutor, Trump alleged that he intentionally misled lenders about his primary residence being in Potomac, Md., rather than in California, in order to “get a cheaper mortgage and rip off America.” Trump cited an investigation by the Fannie Mae “Financial Crimes Division” as his source.

California Sen. Adam Schiff’s lawyer wrote a letter to the Department of Justice saying there was “no factual basis” for President Trump’s accusations that Schiff had committed mortgage fraud.

(Jose Luis Magana / Associated Press)

A memorandum from Fannie Mae investigators to Pulte, previously reported by The Times, noted that investigators had been asked by the Federal Housing Finance Agency inspector general’s office for loan files and “any related investigative or quality control documentation” for Schiff’s homes.

Investigators said they had concluded that Schiff and his wife “engaged in a sustained pattern of possible occupancy misrepresentation” on their home loans between 2009 and 2020 by simultaneously identifying both the Potomac home and the Burbank unit as their primary residence. The investigators didn’t say they had concluded a crime had been committed.

Schiff has publicly dismissed Trump’s allegations as baseless, accusing the president of making mortgage fraud claims “his weapon of choice to attack people standing in his way and people standing up to him, like me.” Bharara’s letter outlined his defense in more detail.

Part of that defense was the letter Bharara said Schiff sent to his lender on his Maryland home, Quicken Loans, a copy of which was provided to the Justice Department and reviewed by The Times.

In that letter, which he sent during a 2010 refinancing, Schiff wrote that while California was his “principal legal residence” and where he paid taxes, he had been informed both by counsel for the lender and for the House Administration Committee that the Maryland home “may be considered a primary residence for insurance underwriting purposes” because members of his family lived in it for most of the year.

Bharara called the letter a “transparent disclosure” and “the antithesis of ‘mortgage misrepresentation.’”

Schiff has previously said that neither of the homes were vacation or investment properties and were classified correctly, both in accordance with how they were used by his family and in consultation with House attorneys and his lenders.

Another part of Schiff’s defense, Bharara wrote, was that even if he had committed fraud by making false statements in his mortgage filings — which Bharara said he did not — the 10-year statute of limitations for charging him has lapsed, as the “most recent mortgage application that Mr. Pulte even accuses of inaccuracy is more than twelve years old.”

Bharara also laid out several reasons why he felt that Pulte’s actions deserve to be investigated.

Bharara asserted that the Federal Housing Finance Agency inspector general appeared to have asked the Fannie Mae Financial Crimes Investigation Unit to delve into Schiff’s mortgage records “at Mr. Pulte’s behest,” and that Pulte personally referred the matter to the Justice Department in May, before the Fannie Mae unit had even provided him with its findings.

He also wrote that the criminal referral was made public “as the President sought to distract from criticism related to [convicted sex offender] Jeffery Epstein.”

Schiff’s address was published as a result, which Bharara said presented a threat to the senator and forced him to take “extra security precautions.” Schiff also has launched a legal defense fund to help him defend himself against the president’s accusations.

Bharara, a former U.S. attorney in New York, described Pulte’s actions as “highly irregular,” and part of a “pattern” of him “misusing his office” to go after Trump’s political opponents.

“Opening an investigation on these deficient facts, after this much time has passed, after such an irregular and suspect process, and when the President has repeatedly expressed his longtime desire to investigate and imprison Senator Schiff, would be a deeply partisan and unjust act, unworthy of the Department of Justice,” Bharara wrote. “Instead, it is Mr. Pulte’s conduct that should be investigated.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump has asked the Supreme Court for a fast-tracking ruling that he has broad power acting on his own to impose tariffs on products coming from countries around the world.

Despite losing in the lower courts, Trump and his lawyers have reason to believe they can win in the Supreme Court. The six conservative justices believe in strong presidential power, particularly in the area of foreign policy and national security.

In a three-page appeal filed Wednesday evening, they proposed the court decide by Wednesday to grant review and to hear arguments in early November.

They said the lower court setbacks, unless quickly reversed, “gravely undermine the President’s ability to conduct real-world diplomacy and his ability to protect the national security and economy of the United States.”

They cited Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s warning about the potential for economic disruption if the court does not act soon.

“Delaying a ruling until June 26 could result in a scenario in which $750 billion-$1 trillion have already been collected and unwinding them could cause significant disruption.” he wrote.

Trump and his tariffs ran into three strong arguments in the lower courts.

First, the Constitution says Congress, not the president, has the power “to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” and a tariff is an import tax.

Second, the 1977 emergency powers law that Trump relies on does not mention tariffs, taxes or duties, and no previous president has used it to impose tariffs.

And third, the Supreme Court has frowned on recent presidents who relied on old laws to justify bold new costly regulations.

So far, however, the so-called “major questions” doctrine has been used to restrict Democratic presidents, not Republicans.

Three years ago, the court’s conservative majority struck down a major climate change regulation proposed by Presidents Obama and Biden that could have transformed the electric power industry on the grounds it was not clearly based on the Clean Air Acts of the 1970s.

Two years ago, the court by the same 6-3 vote struck down Biden’s plan to forgive hundreds of millions of dollars in student loans. Congress had said the Education Department may “waive or modify” monthly loan payments during a national emergency like the Covid 19 pandemic, but it did not say the loans may be forgiven, the court said. Its opinion noted the “staggering” cost could be more than $500 billion.

The impact of Trump’s tariffs figure to be at least five times greater, a federal appeals court said last week in ruling them illegal.

By a 7-4 vote, the federal circuit court cited all three arguments in ruling Trump had exceeded his legal authority.

“We conclude Congress, in enacting the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, did not give the president wide-ranging authority to impose tariffs,” they said.

But the outcome was not a total loss for Trump. The appellate judges put their decision on hold until the Supreme Court rules. That means Trump’s tariffs are likely to remain in effect for many months.

Trump’s lawyers were heartened by the dissent written by Judge Richard Taranto and joined by other others.

He argued that presidents are understood to have extra power when confronted with foreign threats to the nation’s security.

He called the 1977 law “an eyes-open congressional grant of broad emergency authority in this foreign-affairs realm” that said the president may “regulate” the “importation” of dangerous products including drugs coming into this country.

Citing other laws from that era, he said Congress understood that tariffs and duties are a “common tool of import regulation.”

CAPE TOWN, South Africa — Five men deported by the United States to Eswatini in July have been held in a maximum-security prison in the African nation for seven weeks without charge or explanation and with no access to legal counsel, their lawyers said Tuesday.

They accused the Trump administration’s third-country deportation program of denying their clients due process.

The New York-based Legal Aid Society said that it was representing one of the men, Jamaican national Orville Etoria, and that he had been “inexplicably and illegally” sent to Eswatini when his home country was willing to accept him back.

That contradicted the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which said when it deported the five men with criminal records that they were being sent to Eswatini because their home countries refused to take them. Jamaica’s foreign minister has also said that the Caribbean country didn’t refuse to take back deportees.

Etoria was the first of at least 20 deportees sent by the U.S. to various African nations in the last two months to be identified publicly.

Expanding deportation program

The deportations are part of the Trump administration’s expanding third-country program to send migrants to countries in Africa that they have no ties with to get them off U.S. soil.

Since July, the U.S. has deported migrants to South Sudan, Eswatini and Rwanda, while a fourth African nation, Uganda, says it has agreed to a deal in principle with the U.S. to accept deportees.

Washington has said it wants to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whose case has been a flashpoint over President Trump’s hard-line immigration policies, to Uganda after he was wrongly deported to his native El Salvador in March.

Etoria served a 25-year prison sentence and was granted parole in 2021, the Legal Aid Society said, but was now being held in Eswatini’s main maximum-security prison for an undetermined period of time despite completing that sentence.

The U.S. Homeland Security Department said that he was convicted of murder. The agency posted on X in reference to a New York Times report on Etoria, saying that it “will continue enforcing the law at full speed — without apology.”

It didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment from the Associated Press.

The Legal Aid Society said that an Eswatini lawyer acting on behalf of all five men being held in prison there has been repeatedly denied access to them by prison officials since they arrived in the tiny southern African nation bordering South Africa in mid-July.

The other four men are citizens of Cuba, Laos, Vietnam and Yemen.

‘Indefinite detention’

A separate lawyer representing the two men from Laos and Vietnam said that his clients also served their criminal sentences in the U.S. and had “been released into the community.”

“Then, without warning and explanation from either the U.S. or Eswatini governments, they were arbitrarily arrested and sent to a country to which they have never ever been,” the lawyer, Tin Thanh Nguyen, said in a statement. “They are now being punished indefinitely for a sentence they already served.”

He said that the U.S. government was “orchestrating secretive third-country transfers with no meaningful legal process, resulting in indefinite detention.”

U.S. Homeland Security said those two men had been convicted of charges including child rape and second-degree murder.

A third lawyer, Alma David, said that she represented the two men from Yemen and Cuba who are also being held in the same prison and denied access to lawyers. She said she had been told by the head of the Eswatini prison that only the U.S. Embassy could grant access to the men.

“Since when does the U.S. Embassy have jurisdiction over Eswatini’s national prisons?” she said in a statement, adding the men weren’t told a reason for their detention, and “no lawyer has been permitted to visit them.” David said all five were being held at U.S. taxpayers’ expense.

Secretive deals

The deportation deals the U.S. has struck in Africa have been secretive, and with countries with questionable rights records.

Authorities in South Sudan have given little information on where eight men sent there in early July are being held or what their fate might be. They were also described by U.S. authorities as dangerous criminals from South Sudan, Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar and Vietnam.

The five men in Eswatini are being held at the Matsapha Correctional Complex. It’s the same prison where Eswatini, which is ruled by a king as Africa’s last absolute monarchy, has imprisoned pro-democracy campaigners amid reports of abuse that includes beatings and the denial of food to inmates.

Eswatini authorities said when the five men arrived that they were being held in solitary confinement.

Another seven migrants were deported by the U.S. to Rwanda in mid-August, Rwandan authorities said. They didn’t say where they are being held or give any information on their identities.

The deportations to Rwanda were kept secret at the time and only announced last week.

Imray writes for the Associated Press.

The weekend crash follows some rocky years for the one-time Republican presidential candidate.

Former New York City mayor and United States President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, has been hospitalised after a car crash near Manchester, New Hampshire, a spokesman said.

Late Saturday evening, Giuliani suffered a fractured vertebra as well as other cuts, the spokesman, Michael Ragusa, said in a post on X. He said that Giuliani’s rental car was hit from behind at high speed, adding that it was not a targeted attack.

Giuliani, 81, was taken to a nearby trauma centre and was being treated for injuries including “a fractured thoracic vertebrae, multiple lacerations and contusions, as well as injuries to his left arm and lower leg”, according to Ragusa.

Prior to the accident, Giuliani had been “flagged down by a woman who was the victim of a domestic violence incident”, and contacted police assistance on her behalf, Ragusa said.

After the police arrived, Giuliani continued on his way, and his vehicle was hit shortly after pulling onto the highway. Ragusa told The Associated Press in an emailed statement that the car crash was “entirely unrelated” to the domestic violence incident.

Ragusa said Giuliani was “in great spirits” and expected to be released from hospital in a few days.

The weekend crash follows some volatile years for the one-time failed Republican presidential candidate, who was dubbed “America’s mayor” in light of his leadership in New York after the September 11, 2001, attacks.

Giuliani later became Trump’s personal lawyer for a time and a vocal proponent of Trump’s false allegations of fraud in the 2020 election, which was won by Democrat Joe Biden.

Trump and his backers lost dozens of lawsuits claiming fraud, and numerous recounts, reviews and audits of the election results turned up no signs of significant wrongdoing or error.

Two former Georgia elections workers later won a $148m defamation judgement against Giuliani. As they sought to collect the judgement, the former federal prosecutor was found in contempt of court. He faced a trial this winter over the ownership of some of his assets.

He ultimately struck a deal that let him keep his homes and various belongings, including prized World Series rings, in exchange for unspecified compensation and a promise to stop speaking ill of the ex-election workers.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia ’s request for asylum in the United States is a prudent legal strategy, experts say, because it gives his lawyers better options for fighting the Trump administration’s efforts to deport him.

But it’s also a gamble. Depending on how the courts rule, Abrego Garcia could end up back inside the notorious El Salvador prison where he says he was beaten and psychologically tortured.

“It’s a strategic move,” Memphis-based immigration attorney Andrew Rankin said of the asylum request. “And it can certainly backfire. But it’s something I would do as well if I were representing him.”

Abrego Garcia, 30, became a focus of President Trump’s immigration crackdown when he was wrongfully deported to his native country in March. The administration is trying to deport him again.

Here are some things to know about his case:

‘You can’t win every case’

The administration deported Abrego Garcia to El Salvador because U.S. officials said he was an MS-13 gang member. It’s an allegation that Abrego Garcia denies and for which he wasn’t charged.

His removal to El Salvador violated a U.S. immigration judge’s ruling from 2019 that barred his deportation there. The judge found that Abrego Garcia faced credible threats from a local gang that had extorted from and terrorized his family.

Following a U.S. Supreme Court order, the administration returned him to the United States in June. But it was only to face human smuggling charges, which his lawyers have called preposterous and vindictive.

The administration has said it now intends to deport Abrego Garcia to Uganda. Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff and the main architect of Trump’s immigration policies, told reporters Friday that Garcia has “said he doesn’t want to go back to El Salvador.”

Miller said the administration is “honoring that request by providing him with an alternate place to live.”

In an effort to fight back, Abrego Garcia has notified the U.S. government that he fears being sent to Uganda, which has documented human rights abuses. He said he believes he could be persecuted, tortured or sent from there to El Salvador.

But even if he thwarts deportation to Uganda in immigration court, he probably will face attempts to remove him to another country and then another until the administration succeeds, Rankin said.

“By the law of averages, you can’t win every case,” the lawyer said. “The government has sunk its teeth far into what they’re doing with Kilmar and immigration in general, that it wouldn’t make any sense for them to just give up the fight.”

Taking a risk

Asylum, however, could end the fight.

The request would place the focus solely back on his native El Salvador, where Abrego Garcia has previously shown that he has a credible fear of gang persecution.

But he’s taking a risk by reopening his 2019 immigration case, Rankin said. If he loses the bid for asylum, an immigration judge could remove his protection from being returned to his native country.

That could place him back in the infamous Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECO, in El Salvador. It’s where, Abrego Garcia alleges in a lawsuit, he suffered severe beatings, severe sleep deprivation and psychological torture. Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele has denied those allegations.

Abrego Garcia had applied for asylum in 2019. The immigration judge denied his request because it came more than a year after Abrego Garcia had arrived in the U.S. He had fled to Maryland without documentation around 2011.

Abrego Garcia’s lawyers will probably argue that he has the right to request asylum now because he has been in the U.S. for less than a year after being wrongfully deported to El Salvador, Rankin said.

If approved, asylum could provide him with a green card and a path to citizenship.

‘Not going to let this go’

Abrego Garcia’s asylum petition would go through the U.S. immigration court system, which is not part of the judiciary but an arm of the Department of Justice and under the Trump administration’s authority.

That’s where the risk comes in.

Abrego Garcia has a team of lawyers fighting for him, unlike many people who are facing deportation. And a federal judge is monitoring his immigration case.

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys filed a federal lawsuit in Maryland to ensure he can exercise his constitutional rights to fight against deportation in immigration court.

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis cannot rule on whether he gets asylum or is deported, but she said she will ensure his right to due process. His team says he is entitled to immigration court proceedings and appeals, including to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

“Even if he does manage to win asylum, the government is going to appeal,” Rankin said. “They’re not going to let this go. Why would they after they’ve invested months and months into this one guy?”

Rankin noted that if Abrego Garcia remains within the jurisdiction of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, that court’s laws would govern his asylum claim. He said that court has been generally positive toward asylum claims and likely would give Abrego Garcia a “fair shake.”

Finley writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Luena Rodriguez-Feo Vileira in Washington contributed to this report.

SEATTLE — Lawyers are demanding the release of a longtime Oregon resident arrested by the U.S. Border Patrol while fighting a Washington state wildfire, saying that the firefighter was on track for legal status after helping federal investigators solve a crime against his family.

His arrest was illegal, the lawyers said Friday, and violated Department of Homeland Security policies that say immigration enforcement must not be conducted at locations where emergency responses are happening.

He is one of two firefighters arrested last week while working the Bear Gulch fire in the Olympic National Forest, which as of Friday had burned about 14 square miles and was only 13% contained, forcing evacuations.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection said in a statement Thursday that it had been helping the Bureau of Land Management with a criminal investigation of two contractors working at the fire when it discovered two firefighters who it said were in the country without permanent legal status.

The firefighter, whose name and country of origin have not been made public, has lived in the U.S. for 19 years after arriving with his family at age 4. He received a U visa certification from the U.S. attorney’s office in Oregon in 2017 and submitted his U visa application with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services the following year.

The U visa program was established by Congress to protect victims of serious crimes who assist federal investigators, and the man has been waiting since 2018 for the immigration agency to decide on his application, according to Stephen Manning, a lawyer with Innovation Law Lab, a Portland-based nonprofit that’s representing the firefighter.

Another Homeland Security policy says agents can’t detain people who are receiving or have applied for victim-based immigration benefits, his lawyer said. Charging the man with an immigration violation was “an illegal after-the-fact justification” given his U visa status, the attorney said.

His lawyers said Friday that they located him in the immigration detention system and were able to make contact. They were still processing information and are demanding his immediate release, they told the Associated Press in an email.

A senior Homeland Security official said in a statement to the AP on Friday that the two men apprehended were not firefighters and were not actively fighting the fire. Officials said they were providing a supporting role by cutting logs into firewood.

“The firefighting response remained uninterrupted the entire time,” the statement said. “No active firefighters were even questioned, and U.S. Border Patrol’s actions did not prevent or interfere with any personnel actively engaged in firefighting efforts.”

When the U.S. Bureau of Land Management was asked to provide information about why its contracts with two companies were terminated and 42 firefighters were escorted away from the state’s largest wildfire, it declined to answer. It would only say it cooperates with other federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security.

“These law enforcement professionals contribute to broader federal enforcement efforts by maintaining public safety, protecting natural resources, and collaborating with the agencies, such as the Border Patrol,” Interior Department spokesperson Alyse Sharpe told the AP in an email.

Manning said in a letter to Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) that the arrest violated Homeland Security policy.

Wyden was critical of the Border Patrol’s operation, saying the Trump administration was more concerned about conducting raids on fire crews than protecting communities from catastrophic fires. Firefighters put their lives on the line, Wyden emphasized, including the Oregon firefighter who died Sunday while battling a wildfire in southwestern Montana.

“The last thing that wildland firefighter crews need is to be worried about masked individuals trampling their due process rights,” Wyden said in an email to the AP.

Meanwhile, wildfire officials were still trying to get control of the Bear Gulch fire. The number of personnel working on the blaze was listed at 303 on Friday, down from 349 a day earlier.

Bellisle writes for the Associated Press.

NEW YORK — When the White House fired Susan Monarez as director of the premier U.S. public health agency, it was clear to two of the scientific leaders at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that the political meddling would not end and it was time to quit.

“We knew … if she leaves, we don’t have scientific leadership anymore,” one of the officials, Dr. Debra Houry, told the Associated Press on Thursday.

“We were going to see if she was able to weather the storm. And when she was not, we were done,” said Houry, one of at least four CDC leaders who resigned this week. She was the agency’s deputy director and chief medical officer.

The White House confirmed late Wednesday that Monarez was fired because she was not “aligned with” President Trump’s agenda and had refused to resign. She had been sworn in less than a month ago.

Trump’s health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., declined during an appearance on “Fox & Friends” to directly comment on the CDC shake-up. But he said he continues to have concerns about CDC officials hewing to the administration’s health policies.

“So we need to look at the priorities of the agency, if there’s really a deeply, deeply embedded, I would say, malaise at the agency,” Kennedy said. “And we need strong leadership that will go in there and that will be able to execute on President Trump’s broad ambitions.”

A lawyer for Monarez said the termination was not legal — and that she would not step down — because she was informed of her dismissal by staff in the presidential personnel office and that only Trump himself could fire her. Monarez has not commented.

Dr. Richard Besser, a former CDC acting director, said that when he spoke with Monarez on Wednesday, she vowed not to do anything that was illegal or that flew in the face of science. She had refused directives from the Department of Health and Human Services to fire her management team.

She also would not automatically sign off on any recommendations from a vaccines advisory committee handpicked by Kennedy, according to Besser, now president of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which helps support the Associated Press Health and Science Department.

Houry and Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, who resigned as head of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said Monarez had tried to make sure scientific safeguards were in place.

Some concerned the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a group of outside experts who make recommendations to the CDC director on how to use vaccines. The recommendations are then adopted by doctors, school systems, health insurers and others.

Kennedy is a longtime leader in the antivaccine movement, and in June, he abruptly dismissed the entire panel, accusing members of being too closely aligned with manufacturers. He replaced them with a group that included several vaccine skeptics and then he shut the door to several doctors organizations that had long helped form vaccine recommendations.

Recently, Monarez tried to replace the official who coordinated the panel’s meetings with someone who had more policy experience. Monarez also pushed to have slides and evidence reviews posted weeks before the committee’s meetings and have the sessions open to public comment, Houry said.

Department of Health officials nixed that and called her to a meeting in Washington on Monday, Houry said.

When it became clear that Monarez was out, other top CDC officials decided they had to leave, too, Houry and Daskalakis said.

“I came to the point personally where I think our science will be compromised, and that’s my line in the sand,” Daskalakis said.

Monarez’s lawyers, Mark Zaid and Abbe David Lowell, said in a statement that when she refused “to rubber-stamp unscientific, reckless directives and fire dedicated health experts, she chose protecting the public over serving a political agenda. For that, she has been targeted.”

Stobbe writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whose case has come to encapsulate much of President Trump’s hard-line immigration agenda, wants to seek asylum in the United States, his lawyers told a federal judge Wednesday.

Abrego Garcia, 30, was detained Monday by U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement in Baltimore after leaving a Tennessee jail on Friday. The Trump administration said it intends to deport him to the African country of Uganda.

Administration officials have said he’s part of the dangerous MS-13 gang, an allegation Abrego Garcia denies.

The Salvadoran national’s lawyers are fighting the deportation efforts in court, arguing he has the right to express fear of persecution and torture in Uganda. Abrego Garcia has also told immigration authorities he would prefer to be sent to Costa Rica if he must be removed from the U.S.

A request for asylum in 2019

A U.S. immigration judge denied his request for asylum in 2019 because he applied more than a year after he had fled to the U.S. He left El Salvador at the age of 16, around 2011, to join his brother, who had become a U.S. citizen and was living in Maryland.

Although he was denied asylum, the immigration judge did issue an order shielding Abrego Garcia from deportation to El Salvador because he faced credible threats of violence from a gang there that had terrorized him and his family. He was granted a form of protection known as “withholding of removal,” which prohibits him from being sent to El Salvador but allows his deportation to another country.

Following the 2019 ruling, Abrego Garcia was released under federal supervision and continued to live with his American wife and children in Maryland. He checked in with ICE each year, received a federal work permit and was working as a sheet metal apprentice earlier this year, his lawyers have said.

But in March, the Trump administration deported Abrego Garcia to a notorious El Salvador prison, alleging he was a member of MS-13.

The allegation stems from a day in 2019 when Abrego Garcia sought work as a day laborer at a Home Depot in Maryland. Authorities had been told by a confidential informant that Abrego Garcia and other men could be identified as members of MS-13 because of their clothing and tattoos. He was detained by police, but Abrego Garcia was never charged — and has repeatedly denied the allegation. He was turned over to ICE and that’s when he applied for asylum for the first time.

Wrongful deportation and return

The Trump administration’s deportation of Abrego Garcia in March violated the immigration judge’s 2019 order barring his removal to El Salvador. Abrego Garcia’s wife sued to bring him back. Facing mounting pressure and a U.S. Supreme Court order, the Trump administration returned Abrego Garcia to the U.S. in June, where he was charged with human smuggling, a federal offense.

Abrego Garcia is accused of taking money to transport people who were in the country illegally. He has pleaded not guilty and asked the judge to dismiss the case, saying it was filed to punish him for challenging his deportation.

The charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop for speeding in Tennessee. There were nine passengers in the SUV and Abrego Garcia had $1,400 in cash on him. While officers discussed among themselves their suspicions of smuggling, he was allowed to drive away with only a warning.

A Homeland Security agent testified that he didn’t begin investigating until this April, when the government was facing mounting pressure to return Abrego Garcia to the U.S. The trial is set for January.

A federal judge in Tennessee released Abrego Garcia from jail on Friday after ruling that he was not a flight risk or a danger. The Trump administration moved to deport Abrego Garcia again on Monday, alleging he is a danger.

Abrego Garcia then stated his intent to reopen his immigration case in Maryland and to seek asylum again, his lawyers said Wednesday. Asylum, as defined under U.S. law, provides a green card and a path to citizenship. Abrego Garcia can still challenge his deportation to Uganda, or any other country, on grounds that it is unsafe.

Abrego Garcia’s lawyers say sending him to Uganda would be punishment for successfully fighting his deportation to El Salvador, refusing to plead guilty to the smuggling charges and for seeking release from jail in Tennessee.

Judge keeps Abrego Garcia in the U.S., for now

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys have filed a federal lawsuit to ensure that he can exercise his constitutionally protected right to fight deportation. He is entitled to immigration court proceedings and appeals, his lawyers say.

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland, who is overseeing the lawsuit, has ruled that the U.S. government cannot remove Abrego Garcia from the country as the lawsuit plays out.

Justice Department attorney Drew Ensign said the government disagrees with the court’s order not to remove him while the lawsuit is pending but that it will comply.

Xinis will not rule on whether Abrego Garcia receives asylum or is deported, but will determine whether he can exercise his right to contest deportation. His asylum case will be heard by a U.S. immigration judge, who is employed by the Department of Justice under the authority of the Trump administration.

The nation’s immigration courts have become a key focus of Trump’s hard-line immigration enforcement efforts. The president has fired more than 50 immigration judges since he returned to the White House in January.

Abrego Garcia’s lawyers have said he’ll be able to appeal immigration court rulings to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Kunzelman and Finley write for the Associated Press. Finley reported from Norfolk, Va. AP writer Elliot Spagat contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — A watchdog investigation into former special counsel Jack Smith over his prosecutions of President Trump is based on an “imaginary and unfounded” premise, Smith’s lawyers wrote in a letter obtained by The Associated Press on Tuesday.

The letter marks the first response by Smith and his legal team to news that the Office of Special Counsel, an independent watchdog office, had launched an investigation into whether Smith engaged in improper political activity through his criminal inquiries into Trump.

The attorneys told Jamieson Greer, the acting head of the office, that his investigation into Smith was “wholly without merit.”

“Mr. Smith’s actions as Special Counsel were consistent with the decisions of a prosecutor who has devoted his career to following the facts and the law, without fear or favor and without regard for the political consequences, not because of them,” wrote Smith’s lawyers, Lanny Breuer and Peter Koski.

The Office of Special Counsel, which is totally distinct from the Justice Department special counsel position that Smith held for more than two years starting in November 2022, confirmed the investigation following a request from Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, who asked it to examine Smith’s activities for potential violations of the Hatch Act, a federal law that bans certain public officials from engaging in political activity.

Cotton had alleged that Smith sought to interfere in the 2024 presidential election through his prosecutions and sought to effectively fast-track the cases toward resolution, including by asking the Supreme Court to weigh in on a key legal question before a lower court had a chance to review the issue.

But Smith’s lawyers say that argument is contradicted by the facts and note that no court ruling or other authority prohibits prosecutors from investigating allegations of criminal conducts against candidates for office. Politics, they say, played no part in the decision to bring the cases.

“A review of the record and procedural history demonstrates the opposite — Mr. Smith was fiercely committed to making prosecutorial decisions based solely on the evidence, he steadfastly followed applicable Department of Justice guidelines and the Principles of Federal Prosecution, and he did not let the pending election influence his investigative or prosecutorial decision-making,” Smith’s lawyers wrote.

“The predicate for this investigation,” they added, “is imaginary and unfounded.”

Smith, who was appointed special counsel under the Biden administration, brought two cases against Trump, one accusing him of conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and the other of hoarding classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. Both were brought in 2023, well over a year before the 2024 presidential election, and indictments in the two cases cited what Smith and his team described as clear violations of well-established federal law.

Both cases were abandoned by Smith after Trump’s November win, with the prosecutor citing longstanding Justice Department policy prohibiting the indictment of a sitting president.

Tucker writes for the Associated Press.

HERMOSILLO, Mexico — A judge in Mexico said boxer Julio César Chávez Jr. will stand trial over alleged cartel ties and arms trafficking but could await that trial outside of detention, the boxer’s lawyer said.

Chávez’s lawyer, Rubén Fernando Benítez Alvarez, confirmed that the court imposed additional measures and granted three months of further investigation into the case. He described the claims against his client as “speculation” and “urban legends” following the court hearing Saturday in the northern Mexican city of Hermosillo.

If convicted, Chávez — who took part in the hearing virtually from a detention facility — could face a prison sentence of four to eight years, Alvarez said.

Chávez, 39, who had been living in the United States for several years, was arrested in early July by federal agents outside his Los Angeles home, accused of overstaying his visa and providing inaccurate details on an application to obtain a green card. The arrest came just days after a fight he had with famed American boxer Jake Paul in Los Angeles.

Since 2019, Mexican prosecutors have been investigating the boxer following a complaint filed by U.S. authorities against the Sinaloa cartel for organized crime, human trafficking, arms trafficking and drug trafficking.

The case led to investigations against 13 people, among them Ovidio Guzmán López — the son of convicted drug lord Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán — along with some alleged collaborators, hit men and accomplices of the criminal organization. Guzmán López was arrested in January 2023 and extradited to the U.S. eight months later.

Following the inquiry, the federal attorney general’s office issued several arrest warrants, including one for Chávez.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said that Chávez was wanted since 2023 in Mexico but that he wasn’t detained because he spent most of the time in the U.S.

“The hope is that he will be deported and serve the sentence in Mexico,” Sheinbaum said in July.

The boxer, who is the son of Mexican boxing great Julio César Chávez, was deported by the U.S. on Tuesday and handed over to agents of the federal attorney general’s office in Sonora state, who transferred him to the Federal Social Reintegration Center in Hermosillo.

The high-profile case comes as the Trump administration is pressuring Mexico to crack down on organized crime, canceling visas of notable Mexican artists and celebrities and ramping up deportations.

Chávez has struggled with drug addiction throughout his career and has been arrested multiple times. In 2012, he was found guilty of driving under the influence in Los Angeles and was sentenced to 13 days in jail.

He was arrested last year on suspicion of weapons possession. Police reported that Chávez had two rifles. He was released shortly afterward upon posting $50,000 bail, on the condition that he attend a facility to receive treatment for his addiction.

Téllez writes for the Associated Press.

WILLIAMSPORT, Pa. — A federal judge ruled Thursday that President Trump’s former lawyer, Alina Habba, has been unlawfully serving as the the top federal prosecutor in New Jersey.

The court, saying the administration used “a novel series of legal and personnel moves,” held that Habba’s term as the interim U.S. attorney ended in July, and the Trump administration’s maneuvers to keep her in the role without getting confirmation from the U.S. Senate didn’t follow procedures required by federal law.

“Faced with the question of whether Ms. Habba is lawfully performing the functions and duties of the office of the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, I conclude that she is not,” Chief U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann wrote.

The opinion says that Habba’s actions since July “may be declared void.”

Brann, a President Obama appointee, said he’s putting his order on hold pending an appeal. It wasn’t immediately clear if that meant Habba would remain in charge of the U.S. attorney’s office.

A message seeking comment was sent to Habba’s office Thursday. The Justice Department said it intends to appeal the ruling.

Brann’s decision comes in response to a filing on behalf of New Jersey defendants challenging Habba’s tenure and the charges she was prosecuting against them. They sought to block the charges against them, arguing that Habba didn’t have the authority to prosecute the case after her 120-day term as interim U.S. attorney expired in July.

The defendants’ motion to block Habba, a onetime White House advisor to President Trump and his former personal defense attorney, is another high-profile chapter in her short tenure.

She made headlines when Trump named her U.S. attorney for New Jersey in March. She said the state could “turn red,” a rare, overt political expression from a prosecutor, and said she planned to investigate the state’s Democratic governor and attorney general.

She then brought a trespassing charge, which was eventually dropped, against Newark Mayor Ras Baraka stemming from his visit to a federal immigration detention center. Habba later charged Democratic Rep. LaMonica McIver with assault stemming from the same incident, a rare federal criminal case against a sitting member of Congress other than for corruption. She denies the charges and has pleaded not guilty.

Volatility over her tenure unfolded in late July when the four-month temporary appointment was coming to a close and it became clear that she would not get support from home state Sens. Cory Booker and Andy Kim, both Democrats, effectively torpedoing her chances of Senate approval.

The president withdrew her nomination. Around the same time, federal judges in New Jersey exercised their power under the law to replace Habba with a career prosecutor when Habba’s temporary appointment lapsed, but Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi fired that prosecutor and renamed Habba as acting U.S. attorney.

In his opinion, Brann questioned the legal moves the administration conducted to keep Habba in place.

“Taken to the extreme, the President could use this method to staff the United States Attorney’s office with individuals of his personal choice for an entire term without seeking the Senate’s advice and consent,” he wrote.

The Justice Department has said in filings that the judges acted prematurely and that the executive has the authority to appoint his preferred candidate to enforce federal laws in the state.

Trump had formally nominated Habba as his pick for U.S. attorney on July 1, but Booker and Kim’s opposition meant that under long-standing Senate practice known as senatorial courtesy, the nomination would stall out.

A handful of other Trump picks for U.S. attorney are facing a similar circumstance.

Catalini writes for the Associated Press.

A federal judge has ruled that lawyer Alina Habba was unlawfully appointed to the role of acting United States attorney for the District of New Jersey

Thursday’s decision from District Judge Matthew Brann was a rebuke to the administration of President Donald Trump, who has sought to keep Habba, his former personal lawyer, in the role despite a previous court decision replacing her.

“Faced with the question of whether Ms Habba is lawfully performing the functions and duties of the office of the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, I conclude that she is not,” Brann wrote.

Brann accused the Trump administration of using “a novel series of legal and personnel moves” to keep Habba in her role as US attorney.

But, given the fact that Habba has not been officially confirmed to the position by the US Senate, Brann decided that her actions since July 1 “may be declared void”.

Brann, however, put his decision on hold pending a likely appeal from the Trump administration.

The challenge against Habba’s continued role as US attorney came from defendants in cases she was pursuing.

Two, Julien Giraud Jr and Julien Giraud III, were charged with drug and firearm-related offences. A third, Cesar Humberto Pina, was accused of laundering drug proceeds and participating in a “multi-million-dollar Ponzi-like investment fraud scheme”.

Lawyers for Pina released a statement praising the judge’s decision later on Thursday and calling for the Trump administration to follow federal procedure for appointing US attorneys.

“Prosecutors wield enormous power, and with that comes the responsibility to ensure they are qualified and properly appointed,” lawyers Abbe David Lowell and Gerald Krovatin wrote in the statement.

“We appreciate the thoroughness of the court’s opinion, and its decision underscores that this Administration cannot circumvent the congressionally mandated process for confirming US Attorney appointments.”

Trump clashes with judicial branch

Thursday’s court decision is likely to continue the power clash between President Trump and the judiciary, whom he has accused of being politically biased against him and his allies.

While Habba awaits a confirmation hearing before the US Senate, she has served in the US attorney position on an interim basis.

But such interim appointments are capped at a period of 120 days. Continuing beyond that time span requires approval from a panel of judges in the district.

The panel, however, declined Habba’s bid to stay in the role on July 22. It named her second-in-command, career prosecutor Desiree Grace, to replace her as US attorney.

But the Trump administration swiftly moved to reject the judges’ decision. Attorney General Pam Bondi fired Grace and said Habba would continue in her role regardless of the July 22 court order.

“This Department of Justice does not tolerate rogue judges,” Bondi wrote on social media.

The Justice Department, under Trump, has sought to retain term-capped interim US attorneys elsewhere as well.

But Habba’s handling of her position has drawn particular scrutiny, as has her close relationship with the president.

Habba was an early appointment to Trump’s second term. In December, just weeks after winning the 2024 presidential election, Trump revealed he would bring her into the White House as a counsellor for his administration.

Then, on March 24, he announced she would be his pick for US attorney for the New Jersey district.

Previously, Habba has represented Trump as a personal lawyer in several civil cases.

While she won one defamation suit brought against Trump by former reality TV contestant Summer Zervos, she lost two high-profile cases: a defamation suit brought by writer E Jean Carroll and a civil fraud case led by New York Attorney General Letitia James. Trump is currently appealing both of those decisions.

Questions surrounding Habba’s leadership

Since taking on the role of interim US attorney, Habba told a podcaster that she hoped to help “turn New Jersey red” – an indication she may use her traditionally nonpartisan position for partisan aims.

She has also led probes and prosecutions that critics denounced as politically motivated. In one instance, she opened an investigation into New Jersey’s Democratic Governor Phil Murphy over his immigration policies.

In another, she charged Newark Mayor Ras Baraka for trespassing after he attempted to join several Congress members on a tour of the Delaney Hall immigration detention facility.

Those charges were later dropped, and a member of Habba’s office was rebuked in court. “An arrest, particularly of a public figure, is not a preliminary investigative tool,” Judge Andre Espinosa told the prosecutor.

Baraka has since filed a civil complaint accusing Habba of “subjecting him to false arrest and malicious prosecution”.

Still, Habba has continued to pursue criminal charges against US Representative LaMonica McIver for assault during the same incident at Delaney Hall. McIver has called the charge a “blatant political attack”.

Getty Images

‘First Amendment rights’

UK backs down

The Fox Sports hairstylist who alleged that longtime sports talk show host Skip Bayless made unwanted sexual advances toward her has attempted to have her lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court dismissed, only to be rebuffed by the court.

The request is an indication the parties have reached a settlement, said Edson McClellan, a lawyer with Rutan & Tucker who specializes in high-stakes civil and employment litigation. In addition to Bayless, defendants include Fox Corp. and two additional high-profile former employees at Fox Sports — commentator Joy Taylor and executive Charlie Dixon.

McClellan said the filing for dismissal by plaintiff Noushin Faraji “is a strong indication that a settlement has been reached.”

The court rejected the request for dismissal because, in addition to Faraji alleging sexual battery, retaliation and wrongful termination, the lawsuit added a class action complaint alleging that Fox engaged in “unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent business practices” by failing to pay minimum wages, reimburse business expenses and pay severance to other employees as well.

For the settlement with Faraji to take place, her lawyers must either refile the lawsuit without the class action complaint or file a declaration explaining why the individual complaint should be dismissed while the class action complaint continues to move forward, according to Alexander R. Wheeler, a partner with the Parris Law Firm.

“The judge sits in an advisory, almost fiduciary relationship with those who stand to benefit from the class action,” Wheeler said. “If the case was settled to the single plaintiff, the judge might say, ‘Hold on, what’s the deal with the class action?’ Judges do not want plaintiffs using the threat of class action to extract a better settlement.”

Faraji’s allegations in the 42-page lawsuit in January had serious consequences for Bayless, Taylor and Dixon. All three were fired, although Taylor and a lawyer for Dixon said their employment with Fox ended for reasons other than the lawsuit.

“For over a decade at Fox, Faraji was forced to endure a misogynistic, racist, and ableist workplace where executives and talent were allowed to physically and verbally abuse workers with impunity,” the lawsuit alleged.

Faraji accused Bayless, 73, of offering her $1.5 million to have sex with him. Bayless worked at Fox Sports from 2016 until 2024, when his show “Undisputed” was canceled after a dip in ratings coincided with the departure of his co-host, former NFL star Shannon Sharpe.

In a separate case, Sharpe in July reached a multimillion-dollar settlement with a woman who accused the Hall of Fame tight end of sexual assault and battery. Sharpe was fired as a commentator on ESPN’s “First Take” after the settlement was completed.

Faraji’s lawsuit alleges that Dixon made an unwanted pass at her during a birthday party for Taylor at a Hollywood restaurant in 2017. Faraji told Taylor about the episode, but Taylor responded by saying, “Get over it,” pointing out that “she herself only had her job because of Mr. Dixon and that Ms. Faraji only had her job because Ms. Taylor requested her,” and “she warned that Mr. Dixon could take both away,” according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit also details an alleged ongoing affair between Taylor and Dixon as well as a romantic relationship between Taylor and another Fox co-host, Emmanuel Acho.

On the “Hot Mics With Billy Bush” podcast a few days ago, Taylor said the allegations weren’t the reason she was let go by Fox.

“I will say that that situation and that suit had nothing to do with the changes that happened at FS1,” she said. “I mean, I think from a logical standpoint, everyone can just look at it and see what the changes were and that there were three shows that were cut.”

In a court filing denying Faraji’s allegations, Taylor’s attorney wrote that her client “welcomes the opportunity to publicly prove that her inclusion in this action is improper.”

Faraji accused Dixon, the FS1 executive producer of content, of sexual harassment. Former network anchor and reporter Julie Stewart-Binks also accused him in a separate lawsuit.

An attorney for Dixon said in a statement emailed to The Times in April that his client had been told by Fox Sports “that he was being let go for violating company policy” in a matter that had nothing to do with the lawsuits.

“According to the network, Mr. Dixon did not disclose to human resources or the legal department that a third-party production company had hired his wife as a temporary freelancer,” attorney John Ly wrote.

Bayless denied “each and every allegation” made by Faraji in a court filing in February, asserting that he “acted with a good faith belief that he had good cause to act as he did” and none of his actions “were in bad faith, spiteful, malicious, or otherwise motivated by any ill-will or illegal intent.”

Faraji alleged that Bayless made repeated unwanted advances toward her during and after she gave him weekly haircuts, and he offered to pay her for sex.

“Mr. Bayless began finding excuses to touch Ms. Faraji,” the lawsuit states. “He would give her lingering hugs after each haircut, putting his body against her own, pressing against her breasts. He then began to kiss her on her cheeks. Ms. Faraji was uncomfortable by the physical contact and would make excuses to leave right after the haircuts.”

In July 2021, the lawsuit states, Faraji explained to Bayless that she was undergoing biopsies to determine whether she had cancer. “Mr. Bayless then grabbed her hands, began kissing them, and offered her $1.5 million to have sex,” according to the lawsuit. “Approximately one week later, Mr. Bayless made another advance at Ms. Faraji. Ms. Faraji responded: ‘Skip, stop, you have a wife.’”

Lawyers for Fox and the defendants went through mediation in March but could not resolve the case, according to a court filing in April. Faraji’s lawyers wrote that “while the parties did not resolve at mediation, they are continuing to engage in settlement discussions with the mediator.”

Laurie L. Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School and former federal prosecutor, said a settlement likely would be imminent once the class action portion of the lawsuit is addressed to the judge’s satisfaction and the individual complaint is dismissed. Non-disclosure agreements could keep the details from being made public.

“We don’t know who is paying what,” she said. “Were admissions involved? So many cases like this involve non-disclosures. But having gone through mediation, it sounds like they went a long way toward reaching a settlement, and they are at that stage now.”

The former Los Angeles fire chief filed a legal claim against the city Wednesday, alleging that Mayor Karen Bass “orchestrated a campaign of misinformation, defamation, and retaliation” to protect her political image after the most destructive wildfire in city history.

Kristin Crowley and her lawyers accuse Bass of ousting her, and repeatedly defaming Crowley as Bass sought to shift blame for the way the city handled the catastrophic Palisades Fire “while concealing the extent to which she undermined public safety” with cuts to the fire department’s budget.

The legal claim alleges that Bass scapegoated Crowley amid mounting criticism of the mayor’s decision to attend a ceremony in Ghana on Jan. 7, when the fire erupted. Bass left Los Angeles despite her knowing of the potential severe winds and deadly fire danger, the claim alleges.

“As the Fire Chief, for nearly three years, I advocated for the proper funding, staffing and infrastructure upgrades to better support and protect our Firefighters, and by extension, our communities,” Crowley said in a statement to The Times. “The lies, deceit, exaggerations and misrepresentations need to be addressed with the only thing that can refute them — the true facts.”

Bass and the city had yet to respond to a request for comment Wednesday.

Crowley’s lawyers say Bass “initially praised the department’s preparedness” and even portrayed the response positively. “But as criticism mounted over her absence, Bass reversed course,” the legal claim said. “She sought to shift blame to Crowley, falsely stating that Bass was not aware of the nationally anticipated weather event, that Crowley sent 1,000 firefighters home who could have fought the blaze, and misrepresenting the department’s budget…”

Bass removed Crowley on Feb. 21, six weeks after the firestorm that consumed Pacific Palisades, killing 12 people and destroying nearly 7,000 homes.

The mayor said she was demoting Crowley for failing to inform her about the dangerous conditions or to activate hundreds of firefighters ahead of the blaze. She also said Crowley rebuffed a request to prepare a report on the fires — a critical part of ongoing investigations into the cause of the fire and the city’s response.

According to her lawyers, Crowley had “repeatedly warned of the LAFD’s worsening resource and staffing crisis,” prior to the fire, and warned that “aging infrastructure, surging emergency calls, and shrinking staff left the city at risk.”

In the 23-page claim, Crowley said Bass cut the department’s operating budget by nearly $18 million that year and “eliminated positions critical to maintaining fire engines, trucks, and ambulances.”

After Crowley complained publicly that the budget cuts had “weakened the department’s readiness, Bass retaliated,” the lawyers allege. On Jan 10, after Crowley told FOX LA, “we are screaming to be properly funded,” Bass called her to the mayor’s office.

“I don’t know why you had to do that; normally we are on the same page, and I don’t know why you had to say stuff to the media,” the lawyers say Bass told the chief, but said she wasn’t fired.

The next day, retired Chief Deputy Ronnie Villanueva began working at the Emergency Operations Center, donning a Mayor’s office badge. Then Feb. 3, 2025, two weeks before Chief Crowley was removed from her position, Villanueva wrote a Report to the Board of Fire Commissioners identifying himself as Interim Fire Chief” — a position he now holds.

Crowley was eventually ousted and put on leave. Her lawyers allege Bass’s public accusation at the time that Crowley refused to participate in an after action report of the Palisades fire after being asked to by the Fire Commission President Genethia Hayes, a Bass appointee — was blatantly false and she was never asked.

A legal claim is a precursor to a civil lawsuit, and is required by California law when suing a government entity. In her claim, Crowley alleges Bass and her subordinates have conducted a “public smear campaign aimed at discrediting Crowley’s character and decades of service,” following her dismissal.

Crowley’s attorneys, Genie Harrison and Mia Munro, allege that Bass and others in her administration defamed Crowley, retaliated against her in violation of California’s labor code and violated Crowley’s First Amendment rights. Crowley is seeking unspecified damages above $25,000.

Harrison, who has represented numerous victims of Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, said Crowley’s claim “presents her extensive advocacy efforts to obtain the funding and resources the LAFD needed to fulfill its public safety mission. It also shows Mayor Bass’ repeated refusals to provide those resources.”

Bass made the assertion about the failed deployment after an investigation by The Times found that Fire Department officials could have ordered about 1,000 firefighters to remain on duty as winds were building but opted against it. The move would have doubled the firefighting force on hand when fire broke out.

But Crowley and her lawyers say in the legal claim the “LAFD did not have sufficient operating emergency vehicles to safely and effectively pre-deploy 1,000 (or anywhere near 1,000) additional firefighters on January 7.” In simple terms, the department did not have the money or personnel “to repair and maintain emergency fire engines, fire trucks, and ambulances,” the claim alleges.

The Times investigation found the department had more than 40 engines available to battle wildfires, but fire officials staffed only five of them.

Crowley’s lawyers dispute that in the claim. They say “the LAFD staffed all its front-line fire engines (including all the 40 engines that Bass later falsely stated sat “idle.”