loses

WASHINGTON — President Trump spent much of last week railing against the courts. The courts, in turn, spent it ruling against him.

While Trump made history as the first sitting president to attend oral arguments at the Supreme Court, where he stared down justices as they questioned his bid to end birthright citizenship, quieter courtrooms across the country were challenging his agenda.

The challenges came in on immigration, on his White House ballroom project, on his own liability in the run-up to Jan. 6.

“Dumb Judges and Justices will not a great Country make!” he wrote on Truth Social on Monday.

By Friday, judges had served him loss after loss, each finding the administration had taken executive authority too far, too fast.

Immigration rulings

On immigration, the keystone of Trump’s policy platform, he faced a number of setbacks.

On Monday, a federal judge in California took a step that would allow a class-action lawsuit against the administration’s handling of certain asylum claims. The case concerns thousands of asylum seekers who had made appointments with immigration officials by using a Biden administration phone app called CBP One.

In many cases, migrants from around the world had waited months in Mexico for their turn to speak with border agents after securing appointments through the app.

Those appointments were suddenly canceled after Trump took office. The judge certified those asylum seekers as a class that can challenge the administration’s action in court.

In a similar case, a federal judge in Boston ruled Tuesday that the administration had unlawfully terminated the temporary legal status of as many as 900,000 immigrants who entered the country after using the phone app. Tens of thousands of those told by the administration to leave the U.S. “immediately” have since left or been deported.

The judge ordered the administration to reinstate the legal status and work authorization of those remaining.

“Today’s ruling is a clear rejection of an administration that has tried to erase lawful status for hundreds of thousands of people with the click of a button,” said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, a legal organization that represented the migrants.

Sanctuary laws

Also Tuesday, a federal judge threw out a Justice Department lawsuit that accused Denver and Colorado of interfering with immigration enforcement and claimed that the city and state’s “sanctuary” laws violated the Constitution.

The ruling found that the federal government had not shown it could override state and local decisions about how to use their own resources. The Constitution, the judge said, does not let Washington commandeer local governments.

“Colorado gets to make a choice: How will our law enforcement operate in Colorado. The federal government, they don’t get to make that choice for us,” Colorado Atty. Gen. Phil Weiser said.

Birthright citizenship

The next day, the Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical of Trump’s claim that birthright citizenship doesn’t apply to babies born in the U.S. to parents who are here unlawfully or temporarily.

Conservative and liberal judges alike questioned the arguments of Solicitor Gen. John Sauer, who represented the administration, saying he relied on “some pretty obscure sources,” including precedents that dated back to Roman law.

Trump, sitting feet from the proceedings, left the Supreme Court building halfway through.

“We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship!” he wrote shortly after departing.

Austin Kocher, a Syracuse University professor who studies immigration enforcement, wrote on Substack after the Supreme Court hearing that, on immigration policy, there is always a gap between what an administration says it will do and what the government can actually deliver. That gap, he argued, is particularly evident in the second Trump administration.

“The White House has built its political identity around the promise of mass deportation, and the rhetoric has been relentless: record arrests, expanded detention, military flights, the spectacle of enforcement as governance,” Kocher wrote.

“But over the past several days,” he added, “developments from multiple fronts suggests that the operational foundations of the mass deportation campaign are more fragile than the administration would like anyone to believe.”

Defying judicial orders

In some cases, the Trump administration has been undeterred by judicial orders to stop certain practices. In a March ruling unsealed Thursday, a federal judge found that Border Patrol agents had continued making illegal arrests in California’s Central Valley without reasonable suspicion.

The government’s explanations for the arrests, wrote Judge Jennifer Thurston in Fresno, “rely on unsupported assumptions, hunches and generalizations about the relationship between a person’s apparent status as a day laborer and their immigration status.”

White House ballroom

Trump had kicked the week off March 29 by touting his 90,000-square-foot ballroom project, showing designs to reporters on Air Force One.

“I think it’ll be the greatest ballroom anywhere in the world,” he said. Two days later, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ordered a temporary halt to construction.

Leon stated that the president is the “steward” of the White House, not its “owner,” and ruled that he cannot proceed with such a massive structural change without express authorization from Congress.

In response, Trump raged on Truth Social: “In the Ballroom case, the Judge said we have to get Congressional approval. He is WRONG! Congressional approval has never been given on anything, in these circumstances, big or small, having to do with construction at the White House.”

His administration filed a motion Friday to block the judge’s ruling.

Jan 6. liability

On the same day, a judge ruled that Trump remains personally liable in a civil lawsuit tied to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, allowing those claims to move forward.

It is among the most consequential legal threats he faces.

Trump entered the presidency on the heels of a major Supreme Court win that found former presidents have criminal and civil immunity for official acts during their term.

But Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta deemed Trump’s Jan. 6 speech — in which he directed supporters to march to the Capitol and “fight like hell” — was a political act, not a presidential one, and therefore not shielded by immunity.

“President Trump has not shown that the speech reasonably can be understood as falling within the outer perimeter of his Presidential duties. The content of the ellipse speech confirms that it is not covered by official-acts immunity,” Mehta wrote.

The week ended with yet another setback for Trump when a federal judge on Friday blocked the administration from forcing universities to submit extensive data on applicants and students to prove they don’t illegally consider race in admissions.

Reading the losses

For Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA who has tracked the administration’s legal battles closely, the losing streak had a clear through line.

“It was an awful week for Donald Trump,” he said. “It’s not that the courts are anti-Trump. In fact, he wins a lot. It’s really that he takes such an aggressive approach to policy making that he runs afoul of existing precedents.”

Taken together, last week’s rulings signaled that the courts are insisting that the president is as accountable for his actions as anyone, and that states have constitutional powers he alone cannot override.

“The Trump administration’s recent court losses illustrate that there is still much that the other branches of government can do — in connection with civil society — to uphold the rule of law and mitigate the harms of the administration’s destructive agenda,” said Monika Langarica, deputy legal director at the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law.

“They are one more reminder,” she added, “that the administration will not always have the last word with respect to its unlawful and unconstitutional actions.”

After seven weeks on strike, members of the Writers Guild Staff Union are losing their healthcare.

The staff typically has access to the same plan offered to the Writers Guild members through the Producer-Writers Guild of America Health Plan. Employees represented by the staff union earn coverage on a month-to-month basis if they worked 31 hours per week the previous month. But since the group — which includes over 100 workers across legal, communications and residuals departments — has been on strike, they are no longer eligible.

The staff union wrote on social media that it learned about the coverage loss through an online portal “just hours before this goes into effect.”

“This puts children, spouses and their own employees into a further state of crisis. We are in week seven of our strike. This is just the latest attempt by WGAW to bust our union and break our strike,” the union wrote in the Instagram post.

WGA West confirmed employees who receive health coverage on a month-to-month basis are no longer eligible for it as of April 1. The guild said in a statement that striking employees can elect COBRA continuation coverage if they want to be covered in April and that they “cannot make contributions on behalf of staff employees who did not work in March and have no earnings.”

The work stoppage was first called on Feb. 17, after the staff union alleged that management had no intention to reach an agreement on the pending contract. Negotiations between the WGA and its staff union started last September.

The staff union strike has also coincided with the WGA’s ongoing contract talks with Hollywood’s major film and TV studios. Their members’ current contract is set to expire on May 1. The guild hopes to improve its members’ healthcare plans, increase streaming residuals and expand AI protections. This is the first time the labor group has sat down with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, since both WGA and SAG-AFTRA went on a historic strike in 2023.

Last week, the staffers sent a complete collective bargaining agreement to the union’s management, which they said was “designed to bring this strike to a resolution.” Key sticking points in the negotiations include seniority-based layoffs and promotions, as well as the right to strike mid-term in the contract.

WGA wrote in a statement that it has “negotiated a contract with the staff union that offers generous economic improvements and workplace protections that are among the best for any union staff in Los Angeles.”

Do newspaper endorsements for president still matter? Certainly not as much as they once did, but that doesn’t stop most newspapers (including this one) from exercising their 1st Amendment right to spout off about their choice of candidate, and it doesn’t stop the presidential campaigns from breathlessly reporting each and every endorsement as if it were handed down by the Oracle of Delphi.

So who’s winning the endorsement race?

That all depends on how you look at it.

According to Editor & Publisher, the longtime bible of the newspaper business, the tally as of Saturday was 112 for Republican Mitt Romney and 84 for President Obama. That list didn’t include papers from Sunday, when many delivered their endorsements, but it suggested a shift from 2008, when E&P;’s final tally showed daily newspapers — which historically have skewed Republican — endorsing Obama over Republican John McCain by a better than 3-2 margin, 296 to 180

The American Presidency Project at UC Santa Barbara has also been tracking endorsements, but it limits its list to the 100 largest newspapers. On average, they tend to have more liberal editorial pages, presumably reflecting their locations in Democratic-leaning big cities. As of Sunday, the project showed 33 endorsements for Obama and 27 for Romney. (Although most newspapers have issued their endorsements by now, a significant number are apparently waiting for the final week of the campaign.)

The tally reflects some notable gains for the GOP, however. According to the American Presidency Project, nine of the 100 top newspapers have switched sides from Obama to Romney since 2008, whereas only one went the other direction.

Among those abandoning the president was his Arlington Heights, Il., Daily Herald in his home state, which cast its lot — albeit a bit hesitantly– with Romney on Sunday.

“We believe that Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are good and decent men who care about the country,” the newspaper wrote. “We believe each possesses extraordinary skills and talent. But, philosophically, it is clear that one trusts government too much; the other appears to trust it too little.” The editorial went on to criticize “the tone of Obama’s relentless insinuations that wealthy Americans refuse to pay their fair share. That tone is divisive and damaging for the nation and for our economy. It creates villains and victims, and unfairly so.” That, it said, was, “ultimately, the point where we must break with him.”

The San Antonio Express-News was the only one of the big papers to go the other way. It had endorsed McCain in 2008. This year, it said that while Obama has “had his failings,” such as a failure to pursue immigration reform and to tackle the debt crisis, “These shortcomings … don’t justify a change in leadership, particularly when many of Mitt Romney’s proposals — such as an across-the-board 20 percent cut in taxes and the elimination of unspecified itemized deductions — invite skepticism.”

Concluded the Express-News: “No candidate has all the right policies — that includes Barack Obama. But having weathered the challenges of the last four years, we believe he is in a better position to guide the nation over the next four years — and has earned from voters the privilege to do so.”

It is probably in the nature of newspaper editorials to stop short of adulation and unbridled enthusiasm. That certainly is the case with virtually all the endorsements of Obama and Romney, very few of which are wholehearted.

The Chicago Tribune (owned by the Tribune Co., which also owns The Times) endorsed Obama, but its editorial page editors said, “On questions of economics and limited government, the Chicago Tribune has forged principles that put us closer to the challenger in this race, Republican Mitt Romney. We write with those principles clearly in our minds. Romney advocates less spending, less borrowing — overall, a less costly and less intrusive role for government in the lives of the governed.” So why not just endorse Romney? The Trib concluded that he had been “astonishingly willing to bend his views to the politics of the moment: on abortion, on immigration, on gun laws and, most famously, on healthcare.”

And several newspapers that did endorse Romney expressed the hope that, if elected, he would turn out to be the moderate Romney, not the “severe” conservative he presented himself to be in the Republican primaries.

“Let us stipulate,” said the Houston Chronicle, the largest newspaper to switch from Obama in 2008 to Romney this year. “The Mitt Romney we are endorsing is the Massachusetts moderate who worked successfully alongside an 88 percent Democratic majority in the state Legislature to produce what the Obama administration says became its model for national healthcare reform.”

Not everyone was so equivocal. The New York Post, never known for mincing words, did not choose this occasion to begin.

“Four frustratingly long years ago, a war-weary and economically battered America took a flier on a savior,” the Post wrote.

Next paragraph, in full: “It didn’t work out.”

Some newspapers that endorsed candidates in 2008 decided not to pick anyone this year. The Oregonian, in Portland, supported Obama four years ago, during a campaign in which he held one of his largest rallies in that city. The paper sounded a bit miffed this year when it said it wasn’t endorsing anyone this time around because the candidates hadn’t campaigned in Oregon. “The access and close observation that inform our endorsements for state and local offices and Congress do not apply in a national race; our CNN-level view of the presidential race is similar to everyone else’s,” the paper said.

The New York Times was the largest of the nation’s newspapers to endorse a candidate. It concluded Saturday that Obama “has formed sensible budget policies that are not dedicated to protecting the powerful, and has worked to save the social safety net to protect the powerless.” Romney, it said, “has gotten this far with a guile that allows him to say whatever he thinks an audience wants to hear. But he has tied himself to the ultraconservative forces that control the Republican Party and embraced their policies, including reckless budget cuts and 30-year-old, discredited trickle-down ideas.”

The two largest newspapers in the country, the Wall Street Journal and USA Today, do not usually issue formal endorsements, although the Journal has made no secret of its strong preference for Romney.

The Los Angels Times, for what it’s worth, endorsed Obama and followed up with an explanation from Editorial Page Editor Nick Goldberg of why the newspaper endorses anyone at all, given its mandate to be nonpartisan and unbiased in its news articles. The article contained one reminder of the historically less-than-awesome power wielded by newspaper endorsements: The Times’ first endorsement, in 1884, was for Republican James G. Blaine.

Remember him?

mitchell.landsberg@latimes.com

Twitter: @LATlands

Bill Cosby drugged and sexually assaulted a former waitress in 1972 after escorting her to one of his shows, a civil jury in California concluded Monday, awarding the woman $19.25 million in damages.

The verdict was the latest turn in a series of legal battles the disgraced entertainer, now 88, has faced since allegations that he repeatedly drugged and raped women exploded publicly about a decade ago. Since then, he served about three years in a Pennsylvania prison on sexual assault charges before the case was overturned in 2021.

Donna Motsinger, now 84, said in her lawsuit filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court that Cosby had given her wine and a pill that left her unable to move, and that she woke up in her house wearing nothing but her underwear, according to court records, and that “she knew she had been drugged and raped by Bill Cosby.”

Cosby has denied the allegations, as well as those brought by dozens of other women who claimed they had been drugged and raped. Coming in the early years of the #MeToo movement, a broad social media-inspired campaign to name and prosecute men accused of sexual misconduct, Cosby’s attorneys painted him as an unfair target of mass vigilantism gone awry.

Motsinger sued Cosby in 2023, alleging that, at the time, she was working at a Sausalito restaurant called The Trident that was popular with celebrities, including Cosby, according to the complaint her attorneys filed Sept. 27 of that year. One night, Motsinger accepted Cosby’s invitation to go with him to his show at the Circle Star Theater in San Carlos. Cosby picked her up at her home in a limousine, according to her complaint, and, on the way to the venue, gave her the wine and a pill that she thought was aspirin.

“Next thing she knew, she was going in and out of consciousness while two men attending to Mr. Cosby were putting her in the limousine,” the complaint said. “The last thing Ms. Motsinger recalls were flashes of light,” before waking up in her house in nothing but underwear.

Motsinger didn’t consent to Cosby’s sexual contact and, having been rendered unconscious by drugging, she couldn’t consent to it to begin with, according to the complaint. As a consequence of her ordeal, her complaint says she suffered lost wages, medical bills, pain and suffering and emotional distress.

Japanese football legend says his opinion prompts a US company to cancel an advertising campaign before the FIFA World Cup.

Former Japanese footballer Keisuke Honda says he has lost an advertising deal in the United States after voicing support for the Iranian national team’s participation in the upcoming FIFA World Cup.

Without naming the sponsor, Honda revealed on Saturday that an advertisement from a US-based company had been “put on hold” after he posted on X that he wants Iran to compete in the tournament cohosted by the US, Mexico and Canada.

“I know it’s a very sensitive thing, but I personally want them to participate in the World Cup,” the 39-year-old wrote in a tweet on Thursday, a day after Iran’s sports minister said the country cannot take part in the World Cup after the US and Israel launched a war on it and killed its supreme leader.

Honda, who represented Japan from 2008 to 2018 and scored 38 international goals for his country, posted a follow-up tweet in which he indicated that the advertisement, which had been expected to be finalised in time for the World Cup, had been shelved due to his earlier post.

“Apparently, this statement caused a US company to cancel an advertisement that was about to be finalised to coincide with the World Cup,” he wrote.

“We don’t want anything to do with companies that ignore the essence of things and make decisions based on rotten thinking.”

Iran’s place at the 48-team tournament is in doubt even after they qualified because of the US-Israeli attacks that began on February 28, following which Tehran responded by launching waves of missiles and drones at Israel, several military bases in the Middle East where US forces operate and infrastructure in the region.

The 23rd edition of the FIFA World Cup will be held in the three host nations from June 11 to July 19, and all of Iran’s group games have been scheduled at venues on the US West Coast.

The former Samurai Blue represented his country at the 2010, 2014 and 2018 World Cups and is among the top 10 most capped players and top five goal scorers for the Asian giants.

Honda was named the most valuable player in Japan’s title-winning run at the Asian Cup in 2011. After representing 11 clubs across five continents, the attacking midfielder hung up his boots in 2024 and switched to coaching.

The golden-haired player enjoys a hero-like status in his home country and is one of Japan’s most recognised international footballers.

He expressed his opinion on Team Melli’s participation amid heightened tensions between the host nation US and Iran.

US President Donald Trump said on Thursday that it would not be appropriate for Iran to participate in the World Cup.

“The Iran National Soccer Team is welcome to The World Cup, but I really don’t believe it is appropriate that they be there, for their own life and safety,” Trump wrote in a social media post without elaborating.

The Instagram account for the Iranian national team quickly responded to Trump’s remarks, questioning whether the US president should be commenting on team participation.

“The World Cup is a historic and international event, and its governing body is FIFA – not any individual country,” it wrote.

The account also criticised Trump for failing to provide adequate security for Iran’s national football players.

“Certainly, no one can exclude Iran’s national team from the World Cup,” the message continued. “The only country that could be excluded is one that merely carries the title of ‘host’ yet lacks the ability to provide security for the teams participating in this global event.”

Trump later posted another message on his social media platform to emphasise that the event would be safe for players and spectators from around the world.

SACRAMENTO — With more than 100 fans supporting from the bleachers, Garfield High’s boys’ soccer put on a strong performance at the inaugural CIF state Division V championship game Saturday morning before losing to Ross Branson 2-0 at Natomas High.

Two communication errors on defense proved costly for the Bulldogs, who took a bus from East Los Angeles on Friday, stayed overnight and were set to return after the match.

Coach Pablo Serrano praised his team. “I felt we played outstanding,” he said.

Goalkeeper Javier Zarate turned in another impressive performance. “He can only do so much,” Serrano said.

Zarate, without prodding, went up to CIF executive director Ron Nocetti and thanked him for what will become an annual state soccer championship event.

On Friday, Irvine University won the Division IV boys’ title with a 3-2 win over Del Mar.

Cole Barkett, Jake Raboid and Brendan Leung scored goals.

SACRAMENTO — Heartbreaking loss.

That’s the only way to describe what San Juan Hills players, coaches and fans were feeling on Saturday at Golden 1 Center when Alex Osterloh made two of three free throws with 0.3 seconds left to give Atherton Sacred Heart Prep a 47-45 victory in the Division IV state boys’ basketball championship game.

Osterloh was fouled at the top of the key by Kellen Owens with the scored tied.

“I’m pretty sure I was fouled,” Osterloh said.

San Juan Hills had earlier lost the ball on a turnover, its 19th of the game, surrendering its chance to take the lead.

“It was a tough ending,” San Juan Hills coach Jason Efstathiou said. “We turned over the ball too much. Nineteen is insane. Ultimately we didn’t do a good enough job handling pressure.”

San Juan Hills (22-14) came back from a 12-point deficit in the second quarter to take a four-point lead in the fourth quarter.

Garrett Brehmer finished with 17 points while Rocco Jensen had 10 points and eight rebounds for San Juan Hills. Osterloh scored 15 points and Pat Bala had 13.

“There’s a little distaste,” Efstathiou said, “but at the same time we got to be here.”

The Laguna Hills High girls’ basketball fan who was waving the sign, “Hawk Yea!” at the Golden 1 Center on Friday morning didn’t get much of a workout in the first half of the Division V state championship game against Woodland Christian.

The Hawks (21-12) made 15 turnovers and fell behind by 22 points at halftime. They were unable to overcome their slow start in a 63-30 loss. Woodland Christian scored the first 13 points of the second quarter and led at halftime 33-11.

The Sorbello sisters, Siena and Sofia, combined for 17 of the Cardinals’ 33 first-half points. Siena finished with 21 points and Sofia had seven.

Woodland Christian came in with a 32-3 record and was able to get the ball inside. Bailee Broward also made some outside shots, giving the Cardinals unstoppable inside-outside options. She finished with 17 points.

The war in the Middle East is exposing how dependent the world is on a handful of strategic chokepoints.

The Strait of Hormuz – a narrow waterway in the Gulf – is closed.

The longer this goes on, the faster the global energy map could be reshaped.

From Europe to Asia, countries are facing mounting supply risks and the threat of an inflation shock.

If the conflict between the US, Israel and Iran drags on, alternatives will be hard to find.

But, Russia is shaping up to be a major beneficiary, with soaring prices filling Moscow’s coffers despite Western sanctions.