other state

California and a coalition of 17 other states threw their support Monday behind a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of recent federal immigration enforcement raids in Los Angeles, asking a federal court to issue a temporary restraining order against such operations while their legality is challenged.

The states’ action adds substantial heft to a lawsuit filed last week by advocacy groups and detained individuals, who accused the federal government of violating the rights of Los Angeles residents by sending masked immigration agents to detain people in certain L.A. neighborhoods based on little more than the color of their skin.

It came the same day that heavily armed agents in tactical gear swept through MacArthur Park in Los Angeles in a stunning show of force that further rattled local residents and drew outrage from local officials.

In their amicus filing, the states wrote that masked and unidentified ICE and CBP agents were stopping people in L.A. communities without any legitimate cause, and that such stops have “shattered [the] rhythms of everyday life” and diminished public safety in those neighborhoods.

“Masked immigration agents conducting unannounced enforcement actions through the community and, in all too many instances, stopping residents without so much as a reasonable suspicion of unlawful conduct have left people afraid to leave their homes …,” the states argued. “The cumulative effect of defendants’ unlawful actions — including unconstitutional stops — has had devastating impacts on California’s peace and prosperity, and has turned once bustling neighborhoods into ghost towns.”

The states said the immigration enforcement tactics have had a “chilling effect” that has reached far beyond undocumented people, leading to the detention of U.S. citizens and others legally in the country.

The states wrote that the “secretive approach” to such raids — with agents heavily masked and in plainclothes — “has not only created a culture of fear, but has also needlessly impeded local law enforcement.”

Federal officials have vigorously defended their actions as part of President Trump’s promised agenda to conduct mass deportations. Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement last week that “any claims that individuals have been ‘targeted’ by law enforcement because of their skin color are disgusting and categorically FALSE.”

Trump administration officials also have defended federal agents wearing masks, saying it was to protect themselves and their families from threats to their safety. They declined to comment on the operation in MacArthur Park.

The Trump administration has specifically targeted L.A. for its “sanctuary” policies, and administration officials have suggested that heavy immigration enforcement activity will continue in the city for the foreseeable future.

In announcing the states’ filing Monday, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said the recent actions of ICE and CBP agents in Los Angeles were “part of a cruel and familiar pattern of attacks on our immigrant communities by an administration that thrives on fear and division,” and that his office would be fighting back.

“Let me be crystal clear: These raids are not about safety or justice. They are about meeting enforcement quotas and striking fear in our communities,” he said. “We won’t be silent. We won’t back down. We will continue to hold the federal government accountable when it violates the Constitution and federal law.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement that every person in California is protected by the Constitution against “unreasonable searches and seizures,” and that the recent actions of federal agents in L.A. have threatened “the fabric of our democracy, society, and economy.”

“Instead of targeting dangerous criminals, federal agents are detaining U.S. citizens, ripping families apart, and vanishing people to meet indiscriminate arrest quotas without regard to due process and constitutional rights that protect all of us from cruelty and injustice,” Newsom said.

Joining Bonta in the states’ filing were the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington.

After weathering a pandemic, dual strikes and massive wildfires, Hollywood is finally getting a lifeline.

California legislators voted Friday to more than double the amount allocated each year to the state’s film and television tax credit program, raising that cap to $750 million from $330 million.

The increase is a win for the studios, producers, unions and industry workers who have lobbied state legislators for months on the issue.

Other states and countries have increasingly lured productions away from California with generous tax credits and incentive programs, leaving many in Hollywood without work for months. In interviews, town halls and legislative committee hearings, industry workers said that without state intervention, they feared Tinseltown would be hollowed out, similar to Detroit after the heyday of its auto industry.

“It’s now time to get people back to work and bring production home to California,” Directors Guild of America executive and Entertainment Union Coalition President Rebecca Rhine said in a statement. “We call on the studios to recommit to the communities and workers across the state that built this industry and built their companies.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom called to expand the annual tax credit program last year, saying at the time that “the world we invented is now competing against us.”

From there, state lawmakers looked to expand the provisions of the program. A separate bill going through the Legislature would broaden the types of productions eligible to apply, including animated films, shorts and series and certain large-scale competition shows. It would also increase the tax credit to as much as 35% of qualified expenditures for movies and TV series shot in the Greater Los Angeles area and up to 40% for productions shot outside the region.

That bill, AB 1138, was unanimously approved Thursday by the state Senate Revenue and Tax Committee. It will be up for final votes next week.

California provides a 20% to 25% tax credit to offset qualified production expenses, such as money spent on film crews and building sets. Production companies can apply the credit toward any tax liabilities they have in California.

The bump to 35% puts California more in line with incentives offered by other states, such as Georgia, which provides a 30% credit for productions.

Lawmakers and industry insiders have said the increased tax credit cap and the proposed criteria changes to the incentive program must both be approved to make California more competitive for filming. The bill was written by Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur (D-Los Angeles) and state Sen. Benjamin Allen (D-Santa Monica).

“After years of uncertainty, workers can once again set the stage, cue the lights, and roll the cameras — because California is keeping film and TV jobs anchored right here, where they belong,” Zbur said in a statement about the $750-million cap. “This is a historic investment in our creative economy, our working families, small businesses, and the communities that depend on this industry to thrive.”

NEW ORLEANS — The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested 84 people unlawfully in the country during a raid at a southwestern Louisiana racetrack, the agency announced Tuesday.

ICE said that it raided the Delta Downs Racetrack, Hotel and Casino in Calcasieu Parish on Monday and that the FBI and U.S. Border Patrol were among the agencies carrying out the operation.

Authorities had “received intelligence” that businesses operating at the racetrack’s stables employed “unauthorized workers,” who were targeted in the raid, ICE said.

Of the dozens of workers detained during the raid, “at least two” had prior criminal records, according to the agency.

Those arrested included a 36-year-old Mexican national who ICE said was previously charged with driving under the influence, cocaine possession and illegal reentry.

The agency’s news release also highlighted a 40-year-old Mexican national who it said was arrested previously for aggravated battery with a dangerous weapon and sexual battery, among other charges.

“These enforcement operations aim to disrupt illegal employment networks that threaten the integrity of our labor systems, put American jobs at risk and create pathways for exploitation within critical sectors of our economy,” said Steven Stavinoha, U.S. Customs and Border Protection director of field operations in New Orleans, in a written statement.

“Our Company complies fully with federal labor laws, and to our knowledge, no Delta Downs team members were involved in this matter,” said David Strow, a spokesperson for Boyd Gaming Corp., which owns the racetrack, in an emailed statement. “We will cooperate with law enforcement as requested.”

Brook writes for the Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO — President Trump craves attention and will stoop to any depth to grab it — even pour gasoline on a kindling fire in Los Angeles. But this time he unwittingly provided priceless attention for an adversary.

Because Trump needlessly deployed National Guard troops and — more ridiculous, a Marine battalion to L.A. — California Gov. Gavin Newsom was granted a prime-time speaking slot on national cable television to respond.

“We honor their service. We honor their bravery,” Newsom said of the troops. “But we do not want our streets militarized by our own armed forces. Not in L.A. Not in California. Not anywhere … .

“California may be first — but it clearly won’t end here. Other states are next. Democracy is next. Democracy is under assault right before our eyes. The moment we’ve feared has arrived.”

I’m not sure the “democracy is under assault” message has much traction, but keeping armed combat forces off our streets must be a salable pitch.

Regardless, governors almost never get national TV time to deliver entire speeches, even as brief as Newsom’s. You’ve practically got to be nominated for president. But the publicity-thirsty sitting president provided the cameras for California’s governor.

Newsom’s strong address probably boosted his stock within the Democrat Party and revived dormant speculation about a 2028 presidential bid.

No longer was the Democratic governor playing respectful nice guy and tempering criticism of the Republican president. Now he was standing up to the bully who loves to use California, Newsom and our progressive politics as a punching bag. Trump’s red-state supporters love every swipe at this “left coast” state.

Newsom rose to the occasion, using his greatest asset: invaluable communication skills coupled with telegenic looks.

He laid out his version of what happened to turn relatively peaceful protests against federal immigration raids into destructive street violence. And it’s the correct version by objective accounts.

On Saturday, Newsom said, federal immigration agents “jumped out of an unmarked van” near a Home Depot parking lot and “began grabbing people. A deliberate targeting of a heavily Latino suburb … . In response, everyday Angelenos” exercised their constitutional right to protest.

Police were dispatched to keep the peace and mostly were successful, the governor continued. But then tear gas, rubber bullets and flash-bang grenades were used — by federal agents, Newsom implied.

Then Trump deployed 2,000 California National Guard troops “illegally and for no reason,” the governor asserted.

“This brazen abuse of power by a sitting president inflamed a combustible situation … . Anxiety for families and friends ramped up. Protests started again … . Several dozen lawbreakers became violent and destructive.”

Newsom warned: “That kind of criminal behavior will not be tolerated. Full stop.” And hundreds have been arrested.

But he emphasized: “This situation was winding down and was concentrated in just a few square blocks downtown. But that’s not what Donald Trump wanted … . He chose theatrics over public safety.”

In Trump’s twisted view, if he hadn’t sent in the National Guard, “Los Angeles would be completely obliterated.” Never mind that the violence was confined to a few downtown blocks, a fraction of a city that spreads over 500 square miles.

“We will liberate Los Angeles and make it free and clean again,” the president promised.

Veteran Republican strategist Mike Murphy had it right, telling CNN: “He’s lighting the fire as an arsonist, then claiming to be the fireman.”

It reminded me of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s manufactured Gulf of Tonkin resolution in 1964 that Congress passed, enabling him to vastly escalate U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Johnson reported a North Vietnamese attack on U.S. destroyers that many experts later concluded never happened.

But I think Trump mainly is obsessed with attracting attention. He knows he’ll get it by being provocative. Never mind the accuracy of his words or the wisdom of his actions. Sending in the Marines certainly was an eye-opener. So is staging a military parade on his birthday — an abuse of troops for attention, personal glorification and exercise of his own power.

He’ll say anything provocative without thinking it through: Tariffs one day, suspended the next. He’ll boast of sending San Joaquin Valley water to L.A. for fighting fires when it’s physically impossible to deliver it.

While Trump was playing politics with immigrants and L.A. turmoil, a poll finding was released that should have pleased him.

Californians no longer support providing public healthcare for immigrants living here illegally, the independent Public Policy Institute of California reported. Adult state residents were opposed by 58% to 41% in a survey taken before the L.A. trouble erupted.

By contrast, a PPIC poll in 2021 found that Californians favored providing state healthcare for undocumented immigrants by 66% to 31%.

Polling director Mark Baldassare concluded the public opposition stems mostly from the view that California taxpayers can’t afford the costly program — not that they agree with Trump’s anti-immigrant demagoguery.

In fact, Newson has proposed paring back the state’s multibillion-dollar program of providing Medi-Cal coverage for undocumented immigrants because the state budget has been spewing red ink.

Given all the rhetoric about the L.A. protests, the statement that particularly impressed me came from freshman Assemblyman Mark Gonzalez (D-Los Angeles), whose downtown district stretches from Koreatown to Chinatown.

“Rocks thrown at officers, CHP cars and Waymo vehicles set on fire, arson on the 101 freeway — have nothing to do with immigration, justice or the values of our communities,” he said in a statement Sunday. “These are not protesters — they were agitators. Their actions are reckless, dangerous and playing into exactly what Trump wants.”

Gonzalez is a liberal former chairman of the L.A. County Democratic Party who stuck to his point: Hoodlums can’t be tolerated.

And, thanks to Trump, Newsom was able to make a similar point about the president on national TV: His dangerous, self-serving actions can’t be tolerated either.

California and three other states petitioned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Thursday to ease its new restrictions on the abortion pill mifepristone, citing the drug’s proven safety record and arguing the new limits are unnecessary.

“The medication is a lifeline for millions of women who need access to time-sensitive, critical healthcare — especially low-income women and those who live in rural and underserved areas,” said California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, who filed the petition alongside the attorneys general of Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey.

The petition cites Senate testimony by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. last month, in which Kennedy said he had ordered FDA administrator Martin Makary to conduct a “complete review” of mifepristone and its labeling requirements.

The drug, which can be received by mail, has been on the U.S. market for 25 years and taken safely by millions of Americans, according to experts. It is the most common method of terminating a pregnancy in the U.S., with its use surging after the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade in 2022.

The Supreme Court upheld access to the drug for early pregnancies under previous FDA regulations last year, but it has remained a target of anti-abortion conservatives. The Trump administration has given Kennedy broad rein to shake up American medicine under his “Make America Healthy Again” banner, and Kennedy has swiftly rankled medical experts by using dubious science — and even fake citations — to question vaccine regimens and research and other longstanding public health measures.

At the Senate hearing, Kennedy cited “new data” from a flawed report pushed by anti-abortion groups — and not published in any peer-reviewed journal — to question the safety of mifepristone, calling the report “alarming.”

“Clearly, it indicates that, at very least, the label should be changed,” Kennedy said.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) on Monday posted a letter from Makary to X, in which Makary wrote that he was “committed to conducting a review of mifepristone” alongside “the professional career scientists” at the FDA.

Makary said he could not provide additional information given ongoing litigation around the drug.

The states, in their 54-page petition, wrote that “no new scientific data has emerged since the FDA’s last regulatory actions that would alter the conclusion that mifepristone remains exceptionally safe and effective,” and that studies “that have frequently been cited to undermine mifepristone’s extensive safety record have been widely criticized, retracted, or both.”

Democrats have derided Kennedy’s efforts to reclassify mifepristone as politically motivated and baseless.

“This is yet another attack on women’s reproductive freedom and scientifically-reviewed health care,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said the day after Kennedy’s Senate testimony. “California will continue to protect every person’s right to make their own medical decisions and help ensure that Mifepristone is available to those who need it.”

Bonta said Thursday that mifepristone’s placement under the FDA’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy program for drugs with known, serious side effects — or REMS — was “medically unjustified,” unduly burdened patient access and placed “undue strain on the nation’s entire health system.”

He said mifepristone “allows people to get reproductive care as early as possible when it is safest, least expensive, and least invasive,” is “so safe that it presents lower risks of serious complications than taking Tylenol,” and that its long safety record “is backed by science and cannot be erased at the whim of the Trump Administration.”

The FDA has previously said that fewer than 0.5% of women who take the drug experience “serious adverse reactions,” and deaths are exceedingly rare.

The REMS program requires prescribers to add their names to national and local abortion provider lists, which can be a deterrent for doctors given safety threats, and pharmacies to comply with complex tracking, shipping and reporting requirements, which can be a deterrent to carrying the drug, Bonta said.

It also requires patients to sign forms in which they attest to wanting to “end [their] pregnancy,” which Bonta said can be a deterrent for women using the drug after a miscarriage — one of its common uses — or for those in states pursuing criminal penalties for women seeking certain abortion care.

Under federal law, REMS requirements must address a specific risk posed by a drug and cannot be “unduly burdensome” on patients, and the new application to mifepristone “fails to meet that standard,” Bonta said.

The states’ petition is not a lawsuit, but a regulatory request for the FDA to reverse course, the states said.

If the FDA will not do so nationwide, the four petitioning states asked that it “exercise its discretion to not enforce the requirements” in their states, which Bonta’s office said already have “robust state laws that ensure safe prescribing, rigorous informed consent, and professional accountability.”

New Orleans Pelicans star Zion Williamson has been accused of raping and abusing a woman who says she dated the former Duke standout and No. 1 overall draft pick from 2018-2023.

In a civil lawsuit filed Thursday in Los Angeles County Superior Court, a woman identified as Jane Doe provides details of two alleged instances in 2020 during which Williamson raped her in a Beverly Hills apartment he was renting at the time.

“These two incidents were not isolated,” the lawsuit states. “Defendant continued to abuse, rape, assault, and batter Plaintiff in California and other states, including Louisiana and Texas, until the relationship ended in 2023.”

Williamson’s attorneys at Barrasso Usdin Kupperman Freeman & Sarver, LLC, denied the accusations in a statement emailed to The Times on Friday.

“The allegations contained in the complaint are categorically false and reckless,” the firm stated. “This appears to be an attempt to exploit a professional athlete driven by a financial motive rather than any legitimate grievance.”

Williamson’s attorneys said he and the accuser “never dated, but did maintain a consensual, casual relationship.” The firm added that “Mr. Williamson also intends to file counterclaims and seek significant damages for this defamatory lawsuit.”

Williamson’s accuser is seeking unspecified damages for nine causes of action that include assault, sexual battery, domestic violence, burglary, stalking and false imprisonment.

“Our client and we do not want to litigate this case in the press. That’s not our intent,” attorney Sam Taylor from the Lanier Law Firm, which is representing the accuser, told The Times on Friday.

“However, I do say this is a very serious case, reflected in the allegations in the complaint. Our client just looks forward to her day in court where she can talk to a jury of her peers and tell them what happened to her and how bad it was and see justice against Mr. Williamson.”

Taylor said that “as of now,” his client is not planning to file lawsuits in any of the other locations where alleged incidents took place.

The Pelicans did not immediately respond to The Times’ request for comment.

According to the lawsuit, the two began dating during Williamson’s freshman, and only, year at Duke, where he played during the 2018-19 season.

“During the course of their relationship, Defendant engaged in a continuing pattern of abusive, controlling, and threatening behavior toward Plaintiff,” the lawsuit states. “His wrongful conduct occurred in Louisiana and continued thereafter across several states. The abuse was sexual, physical, emotional, and financial in nature.”

Williamson moved to Beverly Hills for training and rented a house in the area during the fall of 2020, according to the filing. The lawsuit provides explicit details of two alleged instances in which Williamson raped the accuser, “on or about” Sept. 23, 2020, and on Oct. 10, 2020.

The lawsuit also alleges that Williamson committed many other “acts of criminal violence” against his accuser during their relationship, including strangling her multiple times to the point she lost consciousness, suffocating and/or smothering her, beating and kicking her, threatening to kill her and her family members, and pointing a loaded firearm to her head.

Williamson “was either drunk or on cocaine” while allegedly committing many of those acts, the lawsuit states.

“As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff has suffered severe emotional distress, anxiety, depression, humiliation, loss of sleep, and other physical and emotional injuries,” the lawsuit states. “As a further direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff has incurred expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.”