motion

In a rare public rebuke, the Los Angeles City Council pressed the city’s top lawyer to abandon her attempt to halt a federal judge’s order prohibiting LAPD officers from targeting journalists with crowd control weapons.

One day before “No Kings” demonstrations against the Trump administration were set to launch in L.A. and elsewhere, the council voted 12-0 to direct City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto to withdraw her request to lift the order.

Hours later, Feldstein Soto’s legal team did just that, informing the judge it was pulling back its request — around the same time the judge rejected it.

Since June, the city has been hit with dozens of legal claims from protesters and journalists who reported that LAPD officers used excessive force against them during protests over Trump’s immigration crackdown.

The lawsuit that prompted the judge’s ban was brought by the Los Angeles Press Club and the news outlet Status Coup, who pointed to video evidence and testimonials suggesting that LAPD officers violated their own guidelines, as well as state law, by shooting journalists and others in sensitive parts of the body, such as the head, with weapons that launch projectiles the size of a mini soda can at speeds of more than 200 miles per hour.

“Journalism is under attack in this country — from the Trump Administration’s revocation of press access to the Pentagon to corporate consolidation of local newsrooms,” Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, who introduced the motion opposing Feldstein Soto’s legal filing, said in a statement. “The answer cannot be for Los Angeles to join that assault by undermining court-ordered protections for journalists.”

In a motion filed Wednesday, Feldstein Soto’s legal team sought a temporary stay of the order issued by U.S. District Judge Hernán D. Vera. She reiterated her earlier argument that Vera’s ban was overly broad, extending protections to “any journalist covering a protest in [the City of] Los Angeles.”

The city’s lawyers also argued that the ban, which bars the LAPD from using so-called less lethal munitions against journalists and nonviolent protesters, creates “ambiguous mandates” that jeopardize “good-faith conduct” by officers and pose “immediate and concrete risk to officer and public safety.”

In addition to Feldstein Soto’s request for a temporary stay, the city has filed an appeal of Vera’s injunction. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is taking up the appeal, with a hearing tentatively set for mid-November.

Council members have become increasingly vocal about their frustrations with the city attorney’s office. Two months ago, they voiced alarm that an outside law firm billed the city $1.8 million in just two weeks — double the amount authorized by the council. They have also grown exasperated over the rising cost of legal payouts, which have consumed a steadily larger portion of the city budget.

After Feldstein Soto’s motion was reported by LAist, several city council members publicly distanced themselves from her and condemned her decision.

In a sternly worded statement before Friday’s vote, Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez wrote that the city attorney’s “position does not speak for the full City Council.”

“The LAPD should NEVER be permitted to use force against journalists or anyone peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights,” said the statement from Soto-Martínez, who signed Hernandez’s proposal along with Councilmembers Ysabel Jurado and Monica Rodriguez.

On Friday, the council also asked the city attorney’s office to report back within 30 days on “all proactive litigation the Office has moved forward without explicit direction from the City Council or Mayor since July 1, 2024.”

Rodriguez said that Friday’s vote should send a message that the city council needs “to be consulted as a legislative body that is independently elected by the people.”

“What I hope is that this becomes a more permanent act of this body — to exercise its role in oversight,” she said.

Carol Sobel, the civil rights attorney who filed the lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiffs, welcomed the council’s action. Still, she said Feldstein Soto’s filings in the case raise questions about whose interests the city attorney is representing.

“Sometimes you say ‘Mea culpa, we were wrong. We shouldn’t have shot people in the head, despite our policies,’” she said.

A judge temporarily blocked California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s attempt to take over Los Angeles County’s beleaguered juvenile halls on Friday, finding that despite evidence of a “systemic failure” to improve poor conditions, Bonta had not met the legal grounds necessary to strip away local control.

After years of scandals — including frequent drug overdoses and incidents of staff violence against youths — Bonta filed a motion in July to place the county’s juvenile halls in “receivership,” meaning a court-appointed monitor would manage the facilities, set their budgets and oversee the hiring and firing of staff. An ongoing staffing crisis previously led a state oversight body to deem two of L.A. County’s halls unfit to house children.

L.A. County entered into a settlement with the California Department of Justice in 2021 to mandate improvements, but oversight bodies and a Times investigation earlier this year found the Probation Department was falling far short of fixing many issues, as required by the agreement.

On Friday, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Peter A. Hernandez chastised Bonta for failing to clearly lay out tasks for the Probation Department to abide by in the 2021 settlement. Hernandez said the attorney general’s office’s filings failed to show that a state takeover would lead to “a transformation of the juvenile halls.”

The steps the Probation Department needs to take to meet the terms of the settlement have been articulated in court filings and reports published by the L.A. County Office of the Inspector General for several years. Hernandez was only assigned to oversee the settlement in recent months and spent much of Friday’s hearing complaining about a lack of “clarity” in the case.

Hernandez wrote that Bonta’s motion had set off alarm bells about the Probation Department’s management of the halls.

“Going forward, the court expects all parties to have an ‘all-hands’ mentality,” the judge wrote in a tentative ruling earlier this week, which he adopted Friday morning.

Hernandez said he would not rule out the possibility of a receivership in the future, but wanted more direct testimony from parties, including Probation Department Chief Guillermo Viera Rosa and the court-appointed monitor over the settlement, Michael Dempsey. A hearing was set for Oct. 24.

The attorney general’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“The Department remains fully committed to making the necessary changes to bring our juvenile institutions to where they need to be,” Vicky Waters, the Probation Department’s chief spokesperson, said in a statement. “However, to achieve that goal, we must have both the authority and support to remove barriers that hinder progress rather than perpetuate no-win situations.”

The California attorney general’s office began investigating L.A. County’s juvenile halls in 2018 and found probation officers were using pepper spray excessively, failing to provide proper educational and therapeutic programming and detaining youths in solitary confinement for far too long.

Bonta said in July that the county has failed to improve “75%” of what they were mandated to change in the 2021 settlement.

A 2022 Times investigation revealed a massive staffing shortage was leading to significant injuries for both youths and probation officers. By May of 2023, the California Board of State and Community Corrections ordered Barry J. Nidorf Juvenile Hall in Sylmar shuttered due to unsafe conditions. That same month, an 18-year-old died of an overdose while in custody.

The county soon reopened Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall in Downey, but the facility quickly became the site of a riot, an escape attempt and more drug overdoses. Last year, the California attorney general’s office won indictments against 30 officers who either orchestrated or allowed youths to engage in “gladiator fights.” That investigation was sparked by video of officers allowing eight youths to pummel another teen inside Los Padrinos, which has also been deemed unfit to house youths by a state commission.

In court Friday, Laura Fair, an attorney from the attorney general’s office, said that while she understood Hernandez’s position, she expressed concern that teens are still in danger while in the Probation Department’s custody.

“The youth in the halls continue to be in grave danger and continue to suffer irreparable harm every day,” she said.

Fair told the court that several youths transferred out of Los Padrinos under a separate court order in recent weeks showed up at Nidorf Juvenile Hall with broken jaws and arms.

She declined to comment further outside the courtroom. Waters, the Probation Department’s spokesperson, said she was unaware of the situation Fair was describing but would look into it.

Despite the litany of fiascoes over the last few years, probation leaders still argued in court filings that Bonta had gone too far.

“The County remains open to exploring any path that will lead to better outcomes. But it strongly opposes the DOJ’s ill-conceived proposal, which will only harm the youth in the County’s care by sowing chaos and inconsistency,” county lawyers wrote in an opposition motion submitted last month. “The DOJ’s request is almost literally without precedent. No state judge in California history has ever placed a correctional institution into receivership.”

Under the leadership of Viera Rosa, who took office in 2023, the Probation Department has made improvements to its efforts to keep drugs out of the hall, rectify staffing issues and hold its own officers accountable for misconduct, the county argued.

The department has placed “airport-grade” body scanners and drug-sniffing dogs at the entrances to both Nidorf and Los Padrinos in order to stymie the influx of narcotics into the halls, according to Robert Dugdale, an attorney representing the county.

Dugdale also touted the department’s hiring of Robert Arcos, a former high-ranking member of the Los Angeles Police Department and L.A. County district attorney’s office, to oversee security in the facilities.

The motion claimed it was the Probation Department that first uncovered the evidence that led to the gladiator fight prosecutions. Bonta said in March that his office launched its investigation after it reviewed leaked footage of one of the incidents.

Los Angeles County is moving to add more checks on how federal immigration officials can access data collected by the Sheriff’s Department that can be used to track where people drive on any given day.

County supervisors voted Tuesday to approve a motion, introduced by Supervisor Hilda Solis, to beef up oversight of data gathered by law enforcement devices known as automated license plate readers.

It’s already illegal in California for local law enforcement agencies to share information gleaned from license plate readers with federal agencies such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement without a warrant.

But after a summer of ramped-up deportations, the county supervisors decided to impose more transparency on who’s requesting license plate data from the Sheriff’s Department — and when the agency provides it.

The change will create a clear policy that the data cannot be “disclosed, transferred, or otherwise made available” to immigration officials except when “expressly required” by law or if they have a warrant.

“In a place like Los Angeles County, where residents depend on cars for nearly every aspect of daily life, people must feel safe traveling from place to place without fear that their movements are being tracked, stored, and shared in ways that violate their privacy,” the motion states.

Supervisor Kathryn Barger cast the sole no vote. Helen Chavez, a spokesperson for Barger, said the supervisor voted against the motion because it calls for the county to support a bill that would limit the amount of time law enforcement can keep most license plate data to 60 days. Law enforcement has opposed that bill, she said.

Across the country, law enforcement agencies use cameras to collect data on millions of vehicles, poring over the records for clues to help find stolen vehicles, crime suspects or missing persons.

A sheriff deputy’s patrol car is equipped with a license plate scanner. The plate numbers are instantaneously processed and if the registered vehicle owners are wanted for felonies or certain types of misdemeanors, if they are registered sex or arson offenders or if an Amber Alert has been issued, an alarm will sound to alert the officer.

(Los Angeles Times)

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department said in a statement it has roughly 366 fixed licensed plate readers from Motorola Vigilant and 476 from Flock Safety in contract cities and unincorporated areas. An additional 89 mobile systems from Motorola are mounted on vehicles that patrol these areas.

The department said its policy already prohibits it from sharing data from plate readers, known as ALPR, with any entity that “does not have a lawful purpose for receiving it.”

“LASD shares ALPR data with other law enforcement agencies only under an executed inter-agency agreement, which requires all parties to collect, access, use, and disclose the data in compliance with applicable law,” the statement read. “LASD has no current agreements for ALPR data sharing with any federal agency.”

Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, said in a statement that the agency has multiple resources at its “fingertips to ensure federal law is enforced in Los Angeles, and throughout the entire country.”

“These sanctuary politicians’ efforts to stop the Sheriff’s Department from cooperating with ICE are reckless and will not deter ICE from enforcing the law,” McLaughlin said.

Southern California law enforcement departments — including LAPD and authorities in San Diego, Orange and Riverside counties — have been accused of routinely flouting state law by sharing license plate data with federal agents. A recent report from CalMatters cited records obtained by the anti-surveillance group Oakland Privacy that showed more than 100 instances in a single month when local police queried databases for federal agencies.

“When you collect this data, it’s really hard to control,” said Catherine Crump, director of UC Berkeley’s Technology & Public Policy Clinic. “It’s no different from once you share your data with Meta or Google, they’re going to repackage your data and sell it to advertisers and you don’t have any idea which of the advertising companies have your data.”

Even with the board cracking down on data sharing, advocates say it’s nearly impossible to ensure federal agents are barred from license plate data in L.A. County.

Dave Maass, the director of investigations for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said private companies that operate in California still collect and sell data that ICE can use.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection also has its own license plate readers around Southern California, he said.

Maass said even if a county bars its local sheriff’s department from sharing data with ICE, it’s difficult to guarantee the rule is followed by the rank-and-file. Immigration officers could informally pass on a plate number to a deputy with access to the system.

An L.A. County Sheriff’s Department patrol car equipped with a license plate reader can scan somewhere between 1,000 and 1,500 plates a day.

(Los Angeles Times)

“Maybe they run the plate,” Maass says. “Unless there’s some public records release from the Los Angeles side of things, we just really don’t know who accessed the system.”

Under the motion passed Tuesday, the sheriff department would need to regularly report what agencies asked for license plate data to two county watchdogs groups — the Office of Inspector General and the Civilian Oversight Commission.

“Having somebody who is somewhat independent and whose role is more aggressively overseeing reviewing these searches is actually quite a big deal,” Maass said.

Parakou, Benin – Until a few years ago, the sound of Iliyasu Yahuza’s matte black Qlink X-Ranger 200 motorbike would bring the neighbourhood children out into the street. They would abandon their games and rush to the roadside, waving excitedly and shouting his name.

Now, they scatter and hide.

And it is not just the children; across all walks of life in the remote villages of northern Benin, the rumble of a motorbike engine now stirs fear and terror as it’s become synonymous with armed fighters roaming the region.

For Yahuza, a 34-year-old trader who has spent years navigating the bumpy roads between remote farms and local markets, the switch “cuts deep”.

His motorbike was once a symbol of success in his community in rural Brignamaro, some 500km (310 miles) away from the capital city, Porto-Novo. Now, he feels it’s a liability that marks him as a potential threat.

“People have begun seeing me as a member of the armed group launching attacks in this region,” Yahuza told Al Jazeera.

“I no longer feel secure riding a motorbike.”

In recent years, motorcycles have become the preferred mode of transport for armed groups operating not only in Benin, but across the Sahel from Burkina Faso to Mali to Niger. Fighters on motorbikes have changed the face of conflict, experts say.

According to a 2023 report by the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime (GI-TOC), motorbikes are “one of the most widely trafficked commodities in the Sahel”, deeply embedded in the region’s criminal economy, and “indispensable to the violent extremist armed groups” operating in West Africa’s borderlands.

In the process, public sentiment towards these vehicles, and those who drive them, has shifted, with a shadow now cast over daily riders like Yahuza.

Pride before the fall

Life in Brignamaro used to move to a different rhythm years ago, Yahuza remembers. Children’s laughter chased the echo of his Qlink X-Ranger – at that time a rarity in these parts – as his peers looked on in admiration and delight.

The shift began in 2023, when approximately 12 suspected armed fighters, all mounted on motorbikes, attacked his community.

They terrorised the village and kidnapped a known businessman. Throughout that year, similar incidents rippled across northern Benin’s provinces, from Alibori to Tanguita and Materi. The pattern was always the same. Armed men would arrive fast, strike hard, and disappear into the landscape on their versatile machines.

As a businessman dealing in soya beans, maize, and groundnuts, Yahuza had chosen his motorbike for purely practical reasons. The vehicle could navigate the rough terrain connecting scattered farming communities, and would last longer than ordinary motorcycles.

“That was the major reason I chose the motorbike. Also, it lasts longer than an ordinary motorcycle and for that, it takes about two years before I change one,” he explained.

But more recently, practicality has given way to paranoia.

Security forces regularly stop Yahuza, demanding documentation and explanations. Even minor disagreements with neighbours can take on sinister undertones.

“The locals in my community are raising eyebrows at me. I could remember having a minor misunderstanding with a colleague, and he was quick to profile me as a militant,” he recounted.

Weapon of choice

Much like the Toyota pick-up trucks that became synonymous with ISIL (ISIS) fighters in Syria and Iraq more than a decade ago, motorbikes have emerged as the tactical vehicle of choice for Sahelian fighters.

Groups like al-Qaeda affiliate Jama’a Nusrat ul-Islam wa al-Muslimin (JNIM), with an estimated 6,000 fighters forming the region’s most heavily armed rebel force, have perfected the art of motorcycle warfare. Fast, nimble, and easy to conceal, these bikes enable hit-and-run tactics perfectly suited to the Sahel’s vast, sparsely populated terrain.

In early 2025 alone, JNIM fighters launched a coordinated campaign of attacks: 30 soldiers killed in Benin, more than 50 people near Kobe in Mali, 44 worshippers in Niger’s Fambita, and 200 troops at Burkina Faso’s Djibo military outpost. In each assault, motorbikes provided the speed and surprise that made these attacks possible.

“Motorbikes have become a critical mobility tool for terrorists, including bandits across the Sahel,” explained Timothy Avele, a counterterrorism expert and managing director of Agent-X Security Limited.

The appeal is multifaceted, according to the expert. “Concealment becomes easier” when fighters can scatter and hide their vehicles. The Sahel’s challenging terrain, with desert expanses, dense forests, and mountainous regions, “favours two-wheeled transport over larger vehicles”. Perhaps most importantly, the economics work in the fighters’ favour.

“Another key factor is the lower fuel cost using motorbikes for their operations and mobility compared to, say, Hilux trucks,” Avele added.

Built to last

In the workshop of Abdulmajeed Yorusunonbi in Tchatchou, some 510km (317 miles) from Porto-Novo, the 31-year-old mechanic swears by the durability of these machines. As a local mechanic, he sees firsthand why armed groups favour these vehicles over ordinary motorcycles.

“The only simple fault motorbikes sometimes get is flat tires. It’s only on rare occasions that you will see the engine needing a repair. Their durability is second to none,” Yorusunonbi noted.

This reliability makes them perfect for rebel operations, where mechanical failure could mean capture or death. But it also means that once acquired, these vehicles remain in the hands of armed fighters for years, multiplying their tactical value.

Like many in his trade, Yorusunonbi has developed his own informal screening system to filter out unscrupulous clients. He watches for telltale signs – customers who pay in cash without haggling, those who avoid eye contact, or groups arriving together. But in a region where poverty is widespread and many legitimate customers share these same traits, certainty remains elusive.

The psychological impact on communities has been profound. Yaru Mako, 41, a farmer in Kerou, 482km (300 miles) from Porto-Novo, told Al Jazeera he now forces himself to believe that whoever drives a motorbike has affiliations with the armed groups. “Because in all the cases of attacks we have had and heard, the perpetrators always used motorbikes. Mostly, they are two persons per motorbike,” he explained.

This suspicion has real consequences. In early 2024, Yahuza found himself detained for hours by soldiers in Kerou who questioned his identity and motives. Only his local connections saved him from a worse fate.

“I was lucky that I know many people who properly identified me as an innocent person,” he said.

Junaidu Woru, a Tanguita resident, voices what many now believe: that non-fighters should abandon motorbikes entirely for their own safety.

“Innocent people should avoid using those bikes for their own safety. Because when an attack happens, and an innocent person drives around the area at that particular time, they can be mistaken for a militant,” he warned.

The underground economy

The flow of motorbikes into the hands of armed groups follows complex routes through West Africa’s porous borders. Benin, once a major importer of motorcycles, saw its official trade disrupted in 2022 when new taxes were imposed, including higher VAT rates and import levies.

Before that, motorcycles were exempt from import duties. The government later imposed customs levies to boost domestic revenue, a fiscally driven move. However, the policy spurred increased smuggling through border hotspots like Malanville and Hillacondji, raising security concerns about untracked vehicles potentially reaching criminal groups in the Sahel.

According to traders in northern Benin, these measures have pushed the trade underground, with buyers increasingly sourcing bikes from neighbouring countries and smuggling them across borders. The motorcycles enter through various routes; from Nigeria across the northern border into Niger, or through Beninese territory, where they are loaded onto pirogues and transported upstream on the River Niger.

In Parakou’s markets, Zubair Sabi sells motorbikes like Yahuza’s Qlink X-Ranger 200 for about 900,000 CFA francs ($1,590). Some models fetch more than one million CFA ($1,770), while others sell for as low as 750,000 CFA ($1,330), prices that put them within reach of well-funded armed groups.

“As a businessman, all I’m interested in is selling my goods,” Sabi said, before acknowledging the moral complexity of his position. “I don’t mind verifying the identity of the customer before selling to them. But I can’t really say who exactly is buying the bikes or what they are using them for.”

Like other traders, Sabi has implemented informal checks, asking for identification, noting suspicious bulk purchases, or refusing sales to unknown customers arriving in groups. Yet, he admits, these measures are far from foolproof.

Governments across the Sahel have responded with blunt instruments, with at least 43 motorcycle bans having been recorded since 2012, according to GI-TOC. Yet these sweeping restrictions often hurt civilians more than armed fighters, cutting off rural communities from markets, clinics and schools.

For traders like Yahuza, the situation presents an impossible dilemma. Without his motorbike, he cannot reach the remote farms where farmers sell their produce. With it, he risks being mistaken for the very criminals terrorising his community.

“It’s not just about riding any more,” he reflected. “It’s about what people think when they see you on it.”

This article is published in collaboration with Egab.

The 2020 presidential election is history, but a legal dispute over Fox News’ reporting on President Trump’s false claims of voter fraud is heating up.

A motion for summary judgment by voting equipment company Smartmatic filed Tuesday in New York Supreme Court laid out in detail how phony allegations that it manipulated votes to swing the election to Joe Biden were amplified on Fox News.

The motion also described how the Fox News Media hosts who are defendants in the suit — the late Lou Dobbs, Jeanine Pirro and Maria Bartiromo of Fox Business — were allegedly committed to helping Trump prove his fraud theories so he could remain in office.

“I work so hard for the President and the party,” Pirro wrote in a text to Ronna McDaniel, then chair of the Republican National Committee.

Pirro left Fox News in May to become U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.

Smartmatic is suing Fox News for $2.7 billion in damages, claiming that the network’s airing of the false statements hurt the London-based company’s ability to expand its business in the U.S.

Fox News settled a similar suit from Dominion Voting Systems for $787.5 million in 2023.

The motion alleged that on-air hosts repeated the fraud claims even though executives and producers were told they were false.

The Fox News research department, known as the “Brainroom,” allegedly informed network producers that Smartmatic’s role in the 2020 election was limited to Los Angeles County and that the company’s software was not used in Dominion voting machines, another false claim made on the air.

Fox News maintains the network’s reporting on President Trump’s false claims were newsworthy and protected by the 1st Amendment. But part of the company’s legal strategy has been focused on minimizing the damage claims.

Fox News has asserted that any problems Smartmatic has experienced in attracting new business are rooted not in its reporting but in the federal investigation into the company’s activities with overseas governments.

Last year, Smartmatic’s founder, Roger Alejandro Piñate Martinez, and two other company officials were indicted by the U.S. attorney’s office and charged with bribing Philippine officials in order to get voting machine contracts in the country in 2016.

While the Trump camp’s assertions that the election was fixed were not believed throughout Fox News and parent company Fox Corp., the conservative-leaning network gave continued to give them oxygen to keep its audience tuned in, the motion alleged.

The motion described a “pivot” that occurred on Nov. 8, 2020, when then-Fox News Executive Chairman Rupert Murdoch and his son Lachlan asked Fox News Media Chief Executive Suzanne Scott to address the decline in the network’s ratings after Biden was declared the winner of the election. The network also looked at research to evaluate why viewers were leaving.

“The conclusion reached based on performance analytics: give the audience more election fraud,” the court document stated.

Such thinking, the filing said, permeated the company, already in a panic over losing viewers to right-leaning network Newsmax. The upstart outlet saw a ratings surge after Biden’s win due to its unwavering support of Trump’s claims.

“Think about how incredible our ratings would be if Fox went ALL in on STOP THE STEAL,” Fox News host Jesse Watters said in a text to his colleague Greg Gutfeld.

Throughout November and December 2020, the three hosts named in the suit, Dobbs, Pirro and Bartiromo, repeatedly featured Trump’s attorneys Rudolph Giuliani and Sidney Powell as guests. They spread the falsehoods that Smartmatic software was used in Dominion voting machines and altered millions of votes.

Smartmatic’s work in Los Angeles during the 2020 election was meant to be an entry point for the company to expand its domestic business. The company’s defamation suit claims that Fox News obliterated those efforts by presenting the false fraud claims.

But Fox News believes that issues with Smartmatic’s $282-million contract with Los Angeles County could help advance its case.

On Aug. 1, federal prosecutors filing a legal brief alleging that taxpayer funds from the county went into a slush fund held by a shell company to help pay for its illegal activities.

Federal prosecutors handling the case involving Smartmatic’s business in the Philippines said they plan to detail similar alleged schemes out of L.A. County and Venezuela to show that the bribery fits a larger pattern.

Fox News attorneys have filed a brief asking for county records that they believe will help bolster their case. The network is also expected to try to get the Smartmatic indictments in front of the court to raise doubts about the company’s reputation.

A Smartmatic representative said Fox News’ records request is a diversion tactic.

“Fox lies and when caught they lie again to distract,” a Smartmatic representative said in a statement. “Fox’s latest filing is just another attempt to divert attention from its long-standing campaign of falsehoods and defamation against Smartmatic.”

The company added that it abided with the law in Los Angeles County and “every jurisdiction where we operate.”

Smartmatic’s Tuesday court filing also included information that contradicted public statements Fox News made at the time.

The document alleged that Fox News fired political analyst Chris Stirewalt and longtime Washington bureau executives Bill Sammon for their involvement in calling the state of Arizona for Biden on election night. The early call of the close result in the state upset the Trump camp and alienated his supporters.

At the time, Fox News said Stirewalt departed as part of a reorganization and Sammon retired.

But the motion said Rupert Murdoch himself signed off on the decision to sever Stirewalt and Sammon from the company in an effort to assuage angry viewers who defected.

The motion cited a communication from Dana Perino, co-host of Fox News show “The Five,” describing a phone call with Stirewalt after his dismissal.

“I explained to him — you were right, you didn’t cave, and you got fired for doing the right thing,” Perino said.

Both Sammon and Stirewalt now work in the Washington bureau of NewsNation, the cable news network owned by Nexstar Media Group.

Jimmie Allen, the Grammy-nominated singer known for “Best Shot” and “Warrior,” is liable for sexually assaulting a woman in a Las Vegas hotel room in 2022 and filming it, a federal judge decided this week.

Judge Aleta A. Trauger on Monday filed an order in Tennessee federal court granting a motion for sanctions and judgment against the 40-year-old country musician, according to court documents reviewed by The Times. Allen’s accuser — identified in court documents as “Jane Doe 2” — filed her motion against the singer and his co-defendants in May, but they failed to respond in a timely manner, the order said.

“The court therefore interprets this motion to be unopposed,” Trauger said, adding later in her order, “defendants throughout have failed to comply with case management discovery deadlines and even failed to comply with specific Orders of this court.”

The order adds that Allen and the co-defendants — his bodyguard and Aadyn’s Dad Touring Inc. — also failed to pay the plaintiff $5,950 in nonrefundable legal fees, as ordered in March. A legal representative for the defendants did not immediately respond on Wednesday to The Times’ request for comment.

Elizabeth Fegan, an attorney for the plaintiff, told The Times on Wednesday that her legal team is “pleased with the Court’s decision to grant judgment for Plaintiff in light of Jimmie Allen’s refusal to participate in the litigation process.”

“We look forward to proving up Plaintiff’s damages caused by Allen’s predatory acts,” Fegan added.

Allen faced multiple sexual assault lawsuits in the summer of 2023, which took a toll on his career and professional opportunities. In May 2023, a woman who said she was Allen’s former manager accused him of sexual battery, assault, false imprisonment, sex trafficking and emotional distress. The woman — identified in court documents as “Jane Doe” — dropped her complaint against Allen in March 2024 after reaching a settlement with the singer, and eventually dismissed the case with prejudice in October 2024.

Jane Doe 2 sued Allen in June 2023, requesting a jury trial and an unspecified amount in damages. She alleged in her complaint that Allen sexually assaulted her in his hotel room in Las Vegas in July 2022. She also accused the singer of filming the alleged assault without her consent, causing her to “suffer extreme emotional distress, including anxiety and depression.”

Allen responded to the two lawsuits with a countersuit of his own in July 2023. At the time, he denied the allegations and accused one woman of defaming him, and the other woman of illegally taking his cellphone after consenting to being recorded.

Amid the final weeks of litigation in Jane Doe 2’s suit, Allen promoted new music and live concerts on social media. Earlier this month, he also addressed the sexual assault allegations on the “Playlisted Podcast,” hosted by Austin Burke.

“I always tell people, ‘No matter where you go in life, the more successful you become … be careful because you have a target on your back,’” he said in an episode published Aug. 10. “Anytime you hear the word ‘lawsuit,’ know there’s money involved.”

He added later in the episode: “As the world moves forward, I just wish people are smarter. I hope people aren’t ‘sheeple’ anymore. That people actually use their brain in every decision, in everything they read.”

A decade ago, Jesus Adan Rico breathed a big sigh of relief. That was when the Chino High School student, a Dreamer, learned an immigration judge had effectively shelved his deportation proceedings. Maria Torres, who came to the U.S. at 2 years old, also had her deportation proceedings paused by an immigration judge because she recently married a U.S. citizen.

Yet just eight weeks ago, Adan Rico — now 29, married with a new child — discovered that the Trump administration had revived his deportation case, even though he has renewed his DACA status at least four times. Torres learned the government wants to bring back her case just as she was preparing for her green card interview.

“No matter what we do, no matter how far we go in school, in our jobs and with our families, it doesn’t matter. It is all hanging by a thread,” he said.

Adan Rico and Torres are among thousands of immigrants who have built lives around the assumption they are safe from being detained and deported. Now they face that threat at the hands of the Department of Homeland Security, which is giving new life to administratively closed cases in a bid to step up immigration enforcement.

Some lawyers have received dozens of motions to recalendar — the first step to reopen old cases. If lawyers don’t succeed in opposing those motions, the immigrants could wind up back in courthouses that in recent months have become a hub for arrests.

“It has been 10 years,” Adan Rico said. “And all of a sudden our lives are on hold again, at the mercy of these people that think I have no right to be here.”

DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin, flanked by Madison Sheahan, left, and Todd Lyons, speaks during a news conference at ICE headquarters in May.

(Jose Luis Magana / Associated Press)

When asked about the government’s push to restart old proceedings, Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin declined to address questions about the administration’s change in policy or respond to attorneys’ complaints about the process. She released a statement similar to others she has offered to the media on immigration inquiries.

“Biden chose to release millions of illegal aliens, including criminals, into the country and used prosecutorial discretion to indefinitely delay their cases and allow them to illegally remain in the United States,” she said. “Now, President Trump and Secretary Noem are following the law and resuming these illegal aliens’ removal proceedings and ensuring their cases are heard by a judge.”

Attorneys handling these proceedings say the government is overwhelming the courts and immigration lawyers by dredging up cases, many of which are a decade or more old. In several of these, clients or their original lawyers have died. In other cases, immigrants have received legal status and were surprised to learn the government was attempting to revive deportation proceedings against them.

Since the 1970s, immigration judges have administratively closed deportation proceedings in order to ease the massive backlog on their dockets and prioritize more urgent cases. The maneuver essentially deferred a case, but didn’t completely dismiss it, giving both the court and the immigrant wiggle room. The idea was that immigrants could pursue other forms of relief such as a hardship waiver or deferred status. The government could reopen the case if needed.

Across the country, immigration attorneys have received a flurry of requests by Homeland Security’s Office of Principal Legal Advisor to revive cases. The motions, attorneys say, appear similar in language, and lack analysis or reference to a change that prompted the decision. In their motions, Trump administration lawyers argue that the targeted immigrants have not been granted green cards and therefore do not have legal status to be here.

The motions urge immigration judges to use their discretion to revive cases and consider whether a person has been detained or the pending application’s “ultimate outcome or likelihood of success.”

What distinguishes immigration proceedings from cases in federal or state courts is that both the lawyers and the judges are part of the executive branch, not the judiciary branch. They answer to Secretary Kristi Noem and Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, respectively.

Attorneys and clients are racing against the clock to submit opposition to these motions. Many have become in essence private investigators, tracking down clients they haven’t seen in years. Other attorneys, who have retired, are looking to other immigration attorneys to pick up their client’s case.

“The court is drowning in these motions because we’re trying to resist these,” said David L. Wilson, an immigration attorney at Wilson Law Group in Minneapolis. He first received a batch of 25 government motions at the end of May — and then they kept coming every few weeks. One case involved a client from El Salvador who had been granted Temporary Protected Status, and whose case was administratively closed in 2006.

Adan Rico, a new father who is studying to be an HVAC technician in the Inland Empire, was stunned that the government was seeking to revive deportation proceedings.

The attorney who originally represented him has since died. “If it wasn’t for his daughter calling, I would have never found out my case was reopened,” he said. “The Department of Homeland Security never sent me anything.”

Attorney Patricia M. Corrales speaks at the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles office in April.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

His new attorney, Patricia Corrales, said Adan Rico’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status doesn’t come up for renewal until 2027 and it defers deportation proceedings. But Corrales, who has received about a dozen motions, said it appears the government isn’t even checking whether the individuals are alive, much less their immigration status.

One of her cases is that of construction worker Helario Romero Arciniega. Seven years ago, a judge administratively closed deportation proceedings for Romero Arciniega, after he was severely beaten with a metal sprinkler head and had qualified for a visa for crime victims.

This year, government officials filed a motion to bring back the deportation proceedings against the construction worker, even though he had died six months ago.

“They don’t do their homework,” Corrales said of the government lawyers. “They’re very negligent in the manner in which they’re handling these motions to re-calendar.”

Some attorneys have reported delays in their ability to file their opposition motions because the court is so overwhelmed.

When asked about the backlog, Kathryn Mattingly, a spokesperson for the federal immigration court known as the Executive Office for Immigration Review, confirmed that the court “must receive the underlying initial motion before it can accept a response to that motion.”

Some immigrants now in legal limbo were just steps away from finalizing their green card applications.

Maria Torres, an L.A. County resident and mother of two, said she was only 2 years old when she was brought to the U.S. by her family. She grew up undocumented, and when the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program became available, applied to gain work authorization.

But in 2019, at 21, she was arrested on suspicion of a misdemeanor DUI, which put her into deportation proceedings. She took the classes and paid her ticket. With deportation proceedings open against her, she was able to get her case closed in 2022 while she sought a visa through her husband, a U.S. citizen.

Her visa was approved, and with just one interview appointment left, Torres felt blindsided when she received a call from her attorney’s office, saying the government wanted to restart deportation proceedings against her.

“I just felt my heart sink and I started crying,” she said. Her attorney submitted a motion opposing the recalendaring of the case, and they are waiting to hear how a judge will rule. In the meantime, she said, she’s hopeful she’ll have her final interview for her approved visa before then.

“People aren’t getting due process,” said attorney Mariela Caravetta. “It’s very unfair to the client because these cases have been sleeping for 10 years.”

(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

Mariela Caravetta, an immigration attorney in Van Nuys, said that, since early June, about 30 of her clients have been targeted with government motions to reopen their cases.

By law, she has to reply in 10 days. That means she has to track down the client, who may have moved out of state.

“It’s bad faith doing it like that,” said Caravetta, who accused the federal government of flooding the immigration courts in an effort to meet its deportation quotas.

“People aren’t getting due process,” she said. “It’s very unfair to the client because these cases have been sleeping for 10 years.”

Caravetta has convinced some judges to deny the government motions because the clients are seeking ways to legally stay in the country. In a handful of cases, she hasn’t been able to reach her clients.

The government isn’t making an effort to reach out to attorneys to discuss the cases, as is required, she added. “That would save a lot of time for everybody,” she said. Her clients may have U-visas, which give relief to migrants who have been victims of crime and who help investigators or prosecutors. But the government’s motions say, “These people have not done anything to legalize their status, we need a final resolution.”

Matt O’Brien, a former federal immigration judge and deputy executive director of FAIR, which advocates for stricter immigration laws, said the Trump administration is “enforcing the Immigration and Nationality Act the way that Congress wrote it.”

He questioned why attorneys are complaining about cases being recalendared, saying “it’s akin to a motion of reopening a case in any other court.”

Yet for many immigrants whose cases are being revived, the risks are high. Judges have discretion to deny motions to reopen cases, and have done so in some situations, attorneys say. But judges have also approved the government’s request if there is no opposition from the immigrant or their attorney.

At that point, cases are put on the calendar. If it gets scheduled, and the immigrants do not show up to court, they could eventually be ruled “in absentia,” which would make them vulnerable to immediate deportation and bar them from entering the country legally for years.

It all fits with the Trump administration’s goal of increasing deportation numbers, say many immigration lawyers and former officials.

“They are getting the largest pool possible of people that they can remove, and removing them from the country,” said Jason Hauser, the former chief of staff of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “And what stands in the way from that is a working due process of an immigration system.”

In April, Sirce E. Owen, acting director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, issued a memo criticizing the use of administrative closure, referring to it as “a de facto amnesty program with benefits” because it offers work authorization and deportation protections. Owen, a former immigration judge, rescinded previous Biden administration guidance that offered a more proactive approach to administrative closures.

Owen stated that, as of April, about 379,000 cases were still administratively closed in immigration court and cited them as a contributing factor to the court system’s backlog of 4 million cases.

In immigration courts in Los Angeles and San Diego, attorneys are already seeing these cases come before immigration judges. Many clients have expressed shock and despair at being dragged back into court.

Sherman Oaks attorney Edgardo Quintanilla has seen about 40 cases recently, including some dating back to the 2010s. Clients, he said, are alarmed not only by the government’s legal maneuvers but by the prospect of entering a federal building these days.

“There is always the fear that they may be arrested when they go to the court,” he said. “With everything going on, it is a reasonable fear.”

Sean “Diddy” Combs will remain in federal custody until he faces sentencing later this year, a judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian on Monday denied the disgraced rapper and music producer’s motion requesting release prior to his sentencing on Oct. 3, The Times has confirmed. Combs has been in federal custody in the Brooklyn Metropolitan Detention Center since his arrest in September. The facility is reportedly notorious for incidents of violence as well as staffing shortages, inmate overcrowding and even power outages.

“Combs fails to satisfy his burden to demonstrate an entitlement to release,” Subramanian said in the order, reviewed by The Times. “The motion for bail is denied.”

A legal representative for Combs, 55, did not immediately respond to The Times’ request for comment.

In his order, Subramanian was unswayed by lawyers’ arguments for Combs’ release including that he shouldn’t be punished for his “swinger” lifestyle; that he’s the target of “ongoing threats of violence” at the MDC; and explanations for his violence against ex-girlfriends Casandra “Cassie” Ventura and Jane, who went by a pseudonym. The two women testified about the musician’s orgies known as “freak-offs” and made allegations about his violent behavior.

Combs’ attorneys urged the release, insisting their client is not a flight risk. The judge, however, didn’t see “clear and convincing evidence” of this or the danger that his lawyers said Combs faced at the prison. Regarding the “squalor and danger” at the facility, Subramanian acknowledged that “public outcry concerning these conditions has come from all corners,” according to the order.

Yet, he wrote, Combs has said that MDC staff have “been able to keep him safe and attend to his needs, even during an incident of threatened violence from an inmate.”

Though Combs was cleared in July of racketeering and sex trafficking, the jury convicted him on two counts of prostitution-related charges. The jury’s split verdict leaves Combs facing up to 10 years in prison for each of the two counts of prostitution.

The denial of bail comes after Combs’ legal team on Sunday submitted a letter from a woman who identified herself as “Victim 3” from the trial. Virginia Huynh wrote in support of the rapper’s release, claiming he had “made visible efforts to become a better person,” according to the letter reviewed by The Times.

She added: “I want to assure the Court that if released, I believe Mr. Combs will adhere to all conditions imposed and will not jeopardize his freedom or the well-being of his family. Allowing him to be at home will also support the healing process for all involved.”

The legal team for Sean “Diddy” Combs has moved to get the disgraced music mogul released from prison ahead of his Oct. 3 sentencing. Less than a month ago, Combs was acquitted of the most damning charges in his high-profile sex-trafficking case.

Combs’ defense attorneys on Tuesday filed a motion requesting the Bad Boy Records founder’s release, outlining the terms for his bail, including a $50-million bond and travel restrictions. The motion, reviewed by The Times, is addressed to Judge Arun Subramanian and claims “there are exceptional circumstances warranting a departure from mandatory detention and ensuring that Sean Combs is released.”

In the 12-page filing, Combs’ lawyers make the case for his pre-sentence release, including that he shouldn’t be jailed for his “swinger” lifestyle and that he faces “ongoing threats of violence” at the Metropolitan Detention Center.

Combs has been in federal custody in the notorious Brooklyn prison since his arrest in September.

The 55-year-old music star was cleared earlier this month of racketeering and sex trafficking but convicted on two counts of prostitution-related charges.

Combs was found guilty of violating the Mann Act by transporting male sex workers across state lines, but his attorneys argued that in similar convictions “the defendants were released pending sentencing.” Additionally, the filing puts a new spin on Combs’ relationships with ex-girlfriends Casandra “Cassie” Ventura and “Jane,” who went by a pseudonym. Each testified about the musician’s orgies known as “freak-offs” and made allegations about his violent behavior. The filing claims that the relationship Combs had with his exes was open, akin to swinging.

“In the the lifestyle he and other adults voluntarily chose, Mr. Combs would be called a swinger,” reads the motion, which later asserts that “Sean Combs should not be in jail for this conduct.”

Combs’ legal team insists in the motion that Combs “is not a risk of flight nor is he a danger to the community or to any specific people.” The motion also downplays the claims of domestic violence against Combs.

Notably, Combs was seen in security footage kicking and dragging Ventura in a Los Angeles hotel. The accuser identified as “Jane” had accused Combs of forced sex, physical violence and abuse.

Referring to earlier court proceedings, Combs’ attorneys note that the “defense admitted a history of domestic violence” but claimed in the motion that Combs struck “Jane” twice in June 2024 because she “provoked” him. The filing also says Combs enrolled in a domestic violence program prior to his arrest last year.

“As we said in court this jury gave [Combs] his life back, and he will not squander his second chance at life, nor would he do anything to further jeopardize his seven children not having a father, and four of his children not having a parent at all,” his defense team says in the motion, referring to the four children Combs shares with Kim Porter, who died in 2018.

According to the proposed bail package, Combs’ $50-million bond would be secured by his home in Miami, where he will live if released. Combs’ attorneys also say his travel would be limited to specific sites in Florida and New York for attorney meetings, and the airports required to travel between those destinations.

To ensure his release, Combs’ attorneys said he was open to the court adding more conditions — including house arrest, mental health treatment and substance abuse treatment — if deemed necessary.

Times editorial library director Cary Schneider contributed to this report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fischer writes for the Associated Press.

Knesset lawmakers vote 71-13 in favour of annexation, raising questions about the future of a Palestinian state.

Israel’s parliament has approved a symbolic measure calling for the annexation of the occupied West Bank.

Knesset lawmakers voted 71-13 in favour of the motion on Wednesday, a non-binding vote which calls for “applying Israeli sovereignty to Judea, Samaria and the Jordan Valley” – the Israeli terms for the area.

It said that annexing the West Bank “will strengthen the state of Israel, its security and prevent any questioning of the fundamental right of the Jewish people to peace and security in their homeland”.

The motion, advanced by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition is declarative and has no direct legal implications, though it could place the issue of annexation on the agenda of future debates in the parliament.

The idea was initially brought forward last year by Israel’s far-right finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, who himself lives in an illegal Israeli settlement and holds a position within Israel’s Ministry of Defence, where he oversees the administration of the West Bank and its settlements.

The West Bank, along with the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, has been under Israeli occupation since 1967. Since then, Israeli settlements have expanded, despite being illegal under international law and, in the case of settlement outposts, Israeli law.

Palestinian leaders want all three territories for a future state. Some 3 million Palestinians and more than 500,000 Israeli settlers currently reside in the West Bank.

Annexation of the West Bank could make it impossible to create a viable Palestinian state, which is seen internationally as the most realistic way to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Last year, the Israeli parliament approved a similar symbolic motion declaring opposition to the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Hussein al-Sheikh, deputy to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, said the motion was “a direct assault on the rights of the Palestinian people”, which “undermines the prospects for peace, stability and the two-state solution”.

“These unilateral Israeli actions blatantly violate international law and the ongoing international consensus regarding the status of the Palestinian territories, including the West Bank,” he wrote in a post on X.

The Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates said in a statement that it strongly rejects any motion for annexation.

The ministry stressed that the “colonial measures” reinforce a system of apartheid in the West Bank and reflect a “blatant disregard” for many United Nations resolutions and the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which was issued in July 2024.

The statement, carried by the official Palestinian Wafa news agency, also warned that such actions deliberately undermine the prospects of implementing a two-state solution.

The ministry added that while settlement expansion continues, de facto annexation is already occurring on a daily basis.

Following Israel’s deadly war on Gaza, Israeli forces have intensified attacks on Palestinian towns and villages in the occupied West Bank, displacing thousands of Palestinians and killing hundreds. Settlers, often backed by Israeli soldiers, have also escalated assaults on Palestinians, their land, and property.

The city and county of Los Angeles are among the local governments seeking to join a lawsuit calling on the Trump administration to stop “unlawful detentions” during ongoing immigration sweeps in Southern California.

On Tuesday, the governments filed a motion to intervene in a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, Public Counsel and immigrant rights groups against the Trump administration last week.

The lawsuit claims that the region is “under siege” by federal agents and aims to stop federal agencies from an “ongoing pattern and practice of flouting the Constitution and federal law” during immigration raids.

“These unconstitutional roundups and raids cannot be allowed to continue. They cannot become the new normal,” said Los Angeles City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto at a news conference Tuesday afternoon.

Feldstein Soto was joined by Mayor Karen Bass and officials from other cities also seeking to join the lawsuit.

The motion from the local governments comes as the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in Southern California enters its second month. Between June 6 and June 22, federal agents arrested 1,618 immigrants for deportation in Los Angeles and surrounding areas, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

“Day in and day out, there is no telling who these federal agents will target or when they will strike, since they refuse to coordinate with local authorities,” attorney John Schwab, who is representing Los Angeles and other cities, wrote in the motion to intervene. “All that is certain is that Defendants’ aim is to instill maximum fear in … communities and wreak havoc on the economy of one of the most diverse and vibrant areas in the country.”

The motion argues that the immigration raids are obstructing local governments’ ability to perform critical law enforcement functions and depriving them of tax revenue because of a slowdown in the local economy.

L.A. County and some cities — Culver City, Montebello, Monterey Park, Pico Rivera, Santa Monica, West Hollywood and Pasadena — hope to become part of the lawsuit at a hearing Thursday where a judge will consider issuing a temporary restraining order that would bar the administration from making unconstitutional immigration arrests.

“How do we know the difference between this and a kidnapping?” Bass asked at the news conference.

In a statement, L.A. County Supervisor Hilda Solis said, “For the past month, we’ve seen individuals picked up at car washes and Home Depot parking lots, then simply disappear without warrants, probable cause, or due process … These actions have created fear, trauma, and instability in our communities. Small businesses are suffering. People are afraid to go to work, take their kids to school, or ride public transportation.”

Feldstein Soto stressed that a temporary restraining order would not stop the Trump administration from conducting legal civil immigration enforcement in L.A.

In a court filing opposing the temporary restraining order, U.S. Department of Justice attorneys argued that L.A. and the other local governments were trying to “interfere with the enforcement of federal immigration law.”

L.A. officials had already been considering a lawsuit before filing the motion Tuesday. Seven City Council members signed onto a proposal asking Feldstein Soto to prioritize “immediate legal action” to protect the civil rights of Angelenos. Feldstein Soto said her office would soon have more announcements on litigation against the administration.

The Trump administration has sued the city of Los Angeles as well, claiming that its sanctuary policy is illegal and discriminates against federal agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Times staff writer Rachel Uranga contributed to this report.

Citing a recent arrest by immigration agents that bloodied a man in the unincorporated area of Valinda, Los Angeles County Supervisor Hilda Solis said she wants the county to explore a legal counterattack against what she described as the federal government’s “unconstitutional immigration enforcement practices.”

In a statement Saturday, Solis said that she plans to co-sponsor a motion at Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting asking the county’s attorney to explore “all legal remedies available to the County to protect the civil rights of our residents and prevent federal law enforcement personnel from engaging in any unconstitutional or unlawful immigration enforcement.”

Such conduct, the motion says, includes the “unlawfully stopping, questioning or detaining individuals without reasonable suspicion, or arresting individuals without probable cause or a valid warrant.”

“As these immigration raids continue to terrorize our communities, I’m deeply disturbed by the forceful detainment of a man in unincorporated Valinda. This incident raises serious concerns about the conduct and legality of these actions, and demonstrates a violation of constitutional rights and due process,” Solis, whose district stretches from Eagle Rock to Pomona, said in a statement.

The Trump administration’s ongoing crackdown on undocumented immigrants, the motion says, has sown widespread fear throughout the region and emptied out normally bustling public spaces, with people “avoiding going to work or visiting grocery stores and restaurants, skipping medical appointments.”

This has had a “tremendous negative impact” on not only the county’s economy, but also its “ability to provide for the health and welfare of our residents,” according to the motion.

The L.A. City Council introduced a similar motion earlier this month seeking to prohibit federal agents from carrying out unconstitutional stops, searches or arrests of city residents.

Federal officials have said their agents are defending themselves against increasingly hostile crowds, which in some cases are interfering with arrests.

Top officials, such as Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, have argued that the government’s raids are targeting “criminals that have been out on our street far too long.” A recent Times analysis suggested that the majority of those who were arrested in early June were not convicted criminals, however.

For weeks, social media has been flooded with videos of federal agents, their faces often shrouded by masks, violently arresting bystanders who are filming their actions, dragging a taco stand vendor by her arm and tossing smoke bombs into a crowd of angry onlookers. One widely circulated clip showed a military-style vehicle accompanying federal law enforcement officers during an apparent raid at a home in Compton earlier this month — part of what critics have called an alarming escalation in tactics.

Footage reviewed by The Times shows a person in the turret of the vehicle pointing what appears to be a less-lethal projectile launcher downward, but it’s unclear whether any shots were fired.

In her statement, Solis cited another federal operation that was at the center of a viral video.

That footage, shot by a bystander and obtained by ABC 7, shows federal agents in tactical vests and masks smashing the windows of a large white pickup truck before apparently pulling out a man from inside.

Several agents are later seen kneeling on top of the man who is bleeding from an apparent head wound, even as a crowd of onlookers demand that the man be released. In one clip, an agent is shown pushing the man’s face into the pavement.

NASHVILLE — A federal judge in Tennessee on Sunday denied the U.S. government’s motion to keep Kilmar Abrego Garcia in detention before his trial on human smuggling charges and ordered his release.

But Abrego Garcia, whose mistaken deportation to El Salvador has become a high-profile case in President Trump’s immigration crackdown, is not expected to go free because U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement will probably take him into custody and possibly try to deport him.

In denying the Trump administration’s motion Sunday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes scheduled a hearing for Wednesday to discuss the conditions of his release.

The U.S. government has already filed a motion to appeal the judge’s decision and is asking her to stay her impending release order.

Abrego Garcia pleaded not guilty on June 13 to smuggling charges that his attorneys have characterized as an attempt to justify his mistaken deportation in March to a notorious prison in El Salvador. That hearing was the first chance the Maryland construction worker had in a U.S. courtroom to answer the Trump administration’s allegations.

The smuggling charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop for speeding in Tennessee during which Abrego Garcia was driving a vehicle with nine passengers. Although officers suspected possible smuggling, he was allowed to go with only a warning.

A federal indictment accuses Abrego Garcia of smuggling throughout the U.S. hundreds of people living in the country illegally, including children and members of the violent MS-13 gang. He has denied the charges.

The investigation was launched weeks after the Supreme Court ordered the administration to facilitate his return from El Salvador amid mounting public pressure.

Holmes acknowledged in her ruling Sunday that determining whether Abrego Garcia should be released is “little more than an academic exercise” because ICE will probably detain him. But the judge wrote that the government failed to prove that Abrego Garcia was a flight risk, that he posed a danger to the community or that he would interfere with proceedings if released.

“Overall, the Court cannot find from the evidence presented that Abrego’s release clearly and convincingly poses an irremediable danger to other persons or to the community,” the judge wrote.

The acting U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee, Rob McGuire, argued on June 13 that the likely attempt by ICE to deport him was one reason to keep him in jail.

The judge suggested then that the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security could work out between themselves whether the government’s priority is to try him on the criminal charges or deport him. No date has been set for the trial.

A 2019 immigration judge’s order prevents Abrego Garcia from being deported to his native El Salvador because he faces a credible threat from gangs there, according to Will Allensworth, an assistant federal public defender representing him.

The government could deport him to a third country, but immigration officials would first be required to show that that country was willing to keep him and not deport him back to El Salvador, Allensworth said.

At the detention hearing, McGuire said cooperating witnesses have accused Abrego Garcia of trafficking drugs and firearms and of abusing the women he transported, among other claims. Abrego Garcia also denies those accusations, and although he is not charged with such crimes, McGuire said they showed him to be a dangerous person who should remain in jail pretrial.

Most people in ICE custody who are facing criminal charges are not kept in the U.S. for trial but deported, according to Ohio State University law professor César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández. The government would not need a conviction to deport Abrego Garcia because he came to the U.S. illegally.

However an immigration judge rules, the decision can be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, García Hernández said. And the board’s ruling can then be contested in a federal appeals court.

Loller and Finley write for the Associated Press and reported from Nashville and Norfolk, Va., respectively.

In the latest twist in the legal saga between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni, Lively is dropping two claims against Baldoni of emotional distress.

As if the drama couldn’t get any messier, the accusations continue to fly. Baldoni’s lawyer filed a letter requesting that the judge in the case compel Lively to “identify her medical and mental health care providers” — signing a HIPAA release to open up access to her therapy notes and pertinent medical info, as People reported.

Rather than do so, the letter says, Lively requested to withdraw her claims of emotional distress, but maybe just for now. Baldoni’s attorney Kevin Fritz said the actor wanted to keep the right to re-file those emotional distress claims at a later time — but Lively “can’t have it both ways.”

Lively’s lawyers take another view.

Esra Hudson and Mike Gottlieb accused Baldoni’s legal counsel of a “press stunt,” saying they are simply “preparing our case for trial by streamlining and focusing it,” as per Deadline’s reporting.

U.S. District Court Judge Lewis J. Liman had this to say on Tuesday: The two parties must decide “whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice” before proceeding further — the claims are either to be dismissed forever or possibly pursued again, but there is no in-between.

Representatives of Baldoni and Lively did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment on Tuesday.

The order comes as the latest event in the lawsuit, with a trial set to begin in March 2026. Lively initially filed a sexual harassment and retaliation complaint in September.

She accused Baldoni, along with his team, of orchestrating a smear campaign against her after she reported on-set sexual harassment, as first reported by the New York Times.

Most recently, Lively sought to dismiss a defamation countersuit from Baldoni. The motion, filed in March, cites a California law that prohibits “weaponizing defamation lawsuits” against those who have filed suit or “spoken out about sexual harassment and retaliation.”

Baldoni’s attorney Bryan Freedman later called the motion “one of the most abhorrent examples of abusing our legal system.”

But Lively’s motion only picked up steam as it drew widespread support from advocacy groups. Equal Rights Advocates, a gender equity and workplace protection-oriented nonprofit based in San Francisco, urged a federal judge to support the motion and uphold the aforementioned law.

Jessica Schidlow, legal director at Child USA, a nonprofit that pushes for more legal protection of abuse victims, told The Times in May that if the law were to be struck down, it would “essentially do away with the protections for all survivors.”

“It would be a devastating setback and completely undermine the purpose of the law, which was to make it easier for victims to come forward and to speak their truth without fear of retaliation,” she added.