right

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide if licensed guns owners have a right to carry their weapons at public places, including parks, beaches and stores.

At issue are laws in California, Hawaii and three other states that generally prohibit carrying guns on private or public property.

Three years ago, Supreme Court ruled that law-abiding gun owners had a 2nd Amendment right to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon when they leave home.

But the justices left open the question of whether states and cities could prohibit the carrying of guns in “sensitive locations,” and if so, where.

In response, California enacted a strict law that forbids gun owners from carrying their firearm in most public or private places that are open to the public unless the owner posted a sign permitting such weapons.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down that provision last year as going too far, but it upheld most of a Hawaii law that restricted the carrying of guns at public places and most private businesses that are open to the public.

Gun-rights advocates appealed to the Supreme Court and urged the justices to rule that such restrictions on carrying concealed weapons violate the 2nd Amendment.

The court agreed to hear the case early next year.

Trump administration lawyers urged the justices to strike down the Hawaii law.

It “functions as a near-complete ban on public carry. A person carrying a handgun for self-defense commits a crime by entering a mall, a gas station, a convenience store, a supermarket, a restaurant, a coffee shop, or even a parking lot,” said Solicitor General D. John Sauer.

Gun-control advocates said Hawaii had enacted a “common sense law that prohibits carrying firearms on others’ private property open to the public.”

“The 9th Circuit was absolutely right to say it’s constitutional to prohibit guns on private property unless the owner says they want guns there,” said Janet Carter, managing director of Second Amendment Litigation, at Everytown Law. “This law respects people’s right to be safe on their own property, and we urge the Supreme Court to uphold it.”

Responding to the Trump administration‘s hampering of federal regulators, Gov. Gavin Newsom on Tuesday signed a bill greatly expanding California’s power over workplace disputes and union elections.

The legislation, Assembly Bill 288, gives the state authority to step in and oversee union elections, charges of workplace retaliation and other disputes between private employers and workers in the event the National Labor Relations Board fails to respond.

As Newsom signed the worker rights bill, his office drew a sharp contrast with the gridlock in Washington, D.C., where a government shutdown looms.

“With the federal government not only asleep at the wheel, but driving into incoming traffic, it is more important than ever that states stand up to protect workers,” Newsom said in a statement. “California is a proud labor state — and we will continue standing up for the workers that keep our state running and our economy booming.”

The NLRB, which is tasked with safeguarding the right of private employees to unionize or organize in other ways to improve their working conditions, has been functionally paralyzed since it lost quorum in January, when Trump fired one of its board members.

The Trump administration has also proposed sweeping cuts to the agency’s staff and canceled leases for regional offices in many states, while Amazon, SpaceX and other companies brought lodged challenges to the 90-year-old federal agency’s constitutionality in court.

With this law in place, workers unable to get a timely response at the federal level can petition the California Public Employment Relations Board to enforce their rights.

The law creates a Public Employee Relations Board Enforcement Fund, financed by civil penalties paid by employers cited for labor violations to help pay for the added responsibilities for the state labor board.

“This is the most significant labor law reform in nearly a century,” said Lorena Gonzalez, president of the California Federation of Labor Unions. “California workers will no longer be forced to rely on a failing federal agency when they join together to unionize.”

The state’s labor board can choose to take on a case when the NLRB “has expressly or impliedly ceded jurisdiction,” according to language in the law. That includes when charges filed with the agency or an election certification have languished with a regional director for more than six months — or when the federal board doesn’t have a quorum of members or is hampered in other ways.

The law could draw legal challenges over whether the bill infringes on federal law.

It was opposed by the California Chamber of Commerce, which warned that the bill improperly attempts to give California’s labor board authority even as the federal agency’s regional offices continuing to process elections as well as charges filed by workers and employers.

The chamber argued that “courts have repeatedly held that states are prohibited from regulating this space.”

Catherine Fisk, Barbara Nachtrieb Armstrong Professor of Law at UC Berkeley Law counters, however, that in the first few decades of the NLRB’s functioning, state labor agencies had much more leeway to enforce federal labor rights.

She said the law “simply proposes going back to the system that existed for three decades.”

The bill’s author, Assemblymember Tina McKinnor (D-Hawthorne) said the bill will ensure California workers can continue to unionize and bargain.

“The current President is attempting to take a wrecking ball to public and private sector employees’ fundamental right to join a union,”McKinnor said in a statement. “This is unacceptable and frankly, un-American. California will not sit idly as its workers are systematically denied the right to organize.”

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court rendered obsolete the 4th Amendment’s prohibition on suspicionless seizures by the police. When the court stayed the district court’s decision in Noem vs. Vasquez Perdomo, it green-lighted an era of policing in which people can be stopped and seized for little more than how they look, the job they work or the language they speak.

Because the decision was issued on the Supreme Court’s “shadow docket,” the justices’ reasoning is unknown. All we have is Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s solo concurrence defending law enforcement’s use of race and ethnicity as a factor in deciding whom to police, while at the same time playing down the risk that comes with every stop — prolonged detention, wanton violence, wrongful deportation and sometimes even death. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in her impassioned dissent (joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson): “We should not live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job.” But now, we do.

The practical effect of this decision is enormous. It strips away what little remained of the guardrails that prevented police (including agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement) from indiscriminately seizing anyone with only a flimsy pretext.

Now there is no real limit on police seizures. History teaches us that people of color will bear the brunt of this policing regime, including the millions of immigrants who are already subject to police roundups, sweeps and raids.

This decision is no surprise for those of us who study the 4th Amendment. The police have long needed very little to justify a stop, and racial profiling is not new. Yet prior to the Vasquez Perdomo order in most instances, police had to at least articulate a non-race-based reason to stop someone — even if as minor as driving with a broken taillight, not stopping at a stop sign long enough, or walking away from the police too quickly.

Now, police no longer need race-neutral person-specific suspicion (pretextual or real) to seize someone. Appearing “Latino” — itself an indeterminate descriptor because it is an ethnicity, not defined by shared physical traits — along with speaking Spanish and appearing to work a low-wage job is enough, even if you have done nothing to raise suspicion.

Some might believe that if you have nothing to hide there is no reason to fear a police stop — that if you just show police your papers or offer an explanation you can go on your way. Even if that were the case, this sort of oppressive militarized police state — where anyone can be stopped for any reason — is exactly what the 4th Amendment rejected and was meant to prevent.

Moreover, ICE agents and police are not in the business of carefully examining documents (assuming people have the right ones on them) or listening to explanations. They stop, seize and detain — citizens and noncitizens alike. If lucky, some people are released, but many are not — including citizens suspected of being in the country illegally, or individuals whose only alleged crimes are often minor (and the product of poverty) or living peacefully (often for years) in the United States without legal status. And as evidenced by plaintiffs in this case, even if eventually released, a single stop can mean harassment, violence, detention or a life permanently upended.

Even if the 4th Amendment doesn’t prevent them, can’t race-based discrimination and police violence often be addressed through civil rights lawsuits? U.S. Code Section 1983 allows individuals to sue officials who violate their rights. But the reality plays out differently. In a recent decision, this Supreme Court dramatically limited class-action lawsuits, the primary vehicle that would allow widespread relief. The court has created a world in which law enforcement can largely act with impunity under the doctrine of qualified immunity. And there is likely no recourse if a federal official such as an ICE agent violates one’s constitutional rights, as the Supreme Court has sharply limited the ability to sue federal officials for money damages even if they commit a clear constitutional wrong.

The recent decision virtually declaring that the 4th Amendment allows police to engage in express racial profiling may not be the final word on the matter. We hope it isn’t. But longstanding court doctrine had already allowed racial profiling to flourish under the guise of seemingly neutral language of “reasonable suspicion” and “consent.” By allowing a further erosion of the limits on seizures, the Court entrenches a system in which the scope of one’s constitutional rights depends upon the color of one’s skin. If the 4th Amendment is to retain meaning, it must be interpreted to constrain — not enable — the racialized policing practices that have become routine in America.

Daniel Harawa and Kate Weisburd are law professors at NYU Law School and UC Law San Francisco, respectively.

San Diego City Councilmember Marni von Wilpert doesn’t generally agree with political parties redrawing congressional maps to gain power.

But after President Trump persuaded Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to redraw his state’s maps in order to improve Republican chances of retaining control of Congress in 2026, Von Wilpert said she decided California’s only option was to fight back with new maps of its own, favoring Democrats.

There’s too much at stake for LGBTQ+ people and other marginalized Californians to do otherwise, said Von Wilpert — who is bisexual and running to unseat Republican incumbent Rep. Darrell Issa, a Trump ally whose district in San Diego and Riverside counties will be redrawn if voters approve the plan.

“We can’t sit on the sidelines anymore and just hope that the far right will play fair or play by the rule book,” said Von Wilpert, 42. “If we don’t fight back now, I don’t know what democracy is going to be left for us to fight for in the future.”

San Diego City Councilmember Marni von Wilpert is challenging Republican incumbent Rep. Darrell Issa, whose Southern California district would be redrawn if voters approve the redistricting plan of California Democrats.

(Sandy Huffaker / For The Times)

Von Wilpert’s challenge to Issa — who did not respond to a request for comment — makes her part of a growing wave of LGBTQ+ candidates running for office at a time when many on the right and in the Trump administration are working aggressively to push queer people out of the American mainstream, including by challenging drag queen performances, queer library books and an array of Pride displays, and by questioning transgender people’s right to serve in the military, receive gender-affirming healthcare, participate in sports or use public restrooms.

They are running to counter those efforts, but also to resist other administration policies that they believe threaten democracy and equality more broadly, and to advocate around local issues that are important to them and their neighbors, said Elliot Imse, executive director of the LGBTQ+ Victory Institute.

The institute, which has trained queer people on running for and holding political office since 1991, has already provided 450 people with in-person training so far this year, compared with 290 people all of last year, Imse said. It recently had to cap a training in Los Angeles at 54 people — its largest cohort in more than a decade — and a first-of-its-kind training for transgender candidates at 12 people, despite more than 50 applying.

“LGBTQ+ people have been extremely motivated to run for office across the country because of the attacks on their equality,” Imse said. “They know the risk, they know the potential for harassment, but those fears are really overcome by the desire to make a difference in this moment.”

“This isn’t about screaming we are trans, this is about screaming we are human — and showing that we are here, that we are competent leaders,” said Josie Caballero, voting and elections director at Advocates for Trans Equality, which helped run the training.

Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.) at the DC Blockchain Summit in Washington on March 26, 2025. The summit brings together policymakers and influencers to discuss important issues facing the crypto industry.

(Kent Nishimura / Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Across the country

Queer candidates still face stiff resistance in some parts of the country. But they are winning elections elsewhere like never before — Rep. Sarah McBride of Delaware became the first out transgender member of Congress last year — and increasingly deciding to run.

Some are Republicans who support Trump and credit him with kicking open the political door for people like them by installing gay leaders in his administration, such as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.

Ed Williams, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, an LGBTQ+ organization, said his group has seen “a surge in interest” under Trump, with “new members and chapters springing up across the country.” He said that “LGBT conservatives stand with President Trump’s fight for commonsense policies that support our schools and parents, put America first, and create opportunities for all Americans.”

Ryan Sheridan, 35, a gay psychiatric nurse practitioner challenging fellow Republican incumbent Rep. Ann Wagner for her House seat in Missouri, said Trump has made the Republican Party a “more welcoming environment” for gay people. He said he agrees with Trump that medical interventions for transgender youth should be stopped, but also believes others in the LGBTQ+ community misunderstand the president’s perspective.

“I do not believe that he is anti-trans. I do not believe he is anti-gay,” Sheridan said. “I understand the fear might be real, but I would encourage anybody that is deeply fearful to explore some alternative points of view.”

Many more LGBTQ+ candidates, however, are Democrats or progressives — and say they were driven to run in part by their disdain for Trump and his policies.

LGBTQ+ candidates and prospective candidates listen to speakers at an LGBTQ+ Victory Institute training in downtown Los Angeles in September.

(David Butow / For The Times)

JoAnna Mendoza, a bisexual retired U.S. Marine, said she is running to unseat Rep. Juan Ciscomani (R-Ariz.) because she took an oath to defend the U.S. and its values, and she believes those values are under threat from an administration with no respect for LGBTQ+ service members, immigrants or other vulnerable groups.

Mike Simmons, the first out LGBTQ+ state senator in Illinois, is running for the House seat of retiring Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and leaning into his outsider persona as a gay Black man and the son of an Ethiopian asylum seeker. “I symbolize everything Donald Trump is trying to erase.”

Texas state Rep. Jolanda Jones, who is a lesbian, said she is running for the House seat of the late Rep. Sylvester Turner (D-Texas), in a historically Black district being redrawn in Houston, because she believes “we need more gay people — but specifically Black gay people — to run and be in a position to challenge Trump.”

Colorado state Rep. Brianna Titone, who is running for Colorado treasurer, said it is critical for LGBTQ+ people — especially transgender people like her — to run, including locally. Trump is looking for ways to attack blue state economies, she said, and queer people need to help ensure resistance strategies don’t include abandoning LGBTQ+ rights.

“We’re going to be extorted, and our economy is going to suffer for that, and we’re going to have to withstand that,” she said.

Rep. Brianna Titone speaks during the general assembly at the Colorado State Capitol on April 23, 2025.

(AAron Ontiveroz / Denver Post via Getty Images)

Jordan Wood, who is gay, served as chief of staff to former Rep. Katie Porter of Orange County before co-founding the Constitution-backing organization democracyFIRST. He’s now back in his native Maine challenging centrist Republican incumbent Sen. Susan Collins.

Collins, who declined to comment, has supported LGBTQ+ rights in the past, including in military service and marriage, and has at times broken with her party to stand in Trump’s way. However, Wood said Collins has acquiesced to Trump’s autocratic policies, including in recent budget battles.

“This is a moment with our country in crisis where we need our political leaders to pick sides and to stand up to this administration and its lawlessness,” Wood said.

Candidates said they’ve had hateful and threatening comments directed toward them because of their identities, and tough conversations with their families about what it will mean to be a queer elected official in the current political moment. The Victory Institute training included information on how best to handle harassment on the campaign trail.

However, candidates said they also have had young people and others thank them for having the nerve to defend the LGBTQ+ community.

Kevin Morrison, a gay county commissioner in the Chicago suburbs who is running for the House seat of Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), who is running for Senate, recently had that experience after defending a transgender high school athlete at a local school board meeting.

Morrison said the response he got from the community, including many of the school’s alumni, was “incredibly positive” — and showed how ready people are for new LGBTQ+ advocates in positions of power who “lead from a place of empathy and compassion.”

In California

LGBTQ+ candidates are running across California — which has been a national leader in electing LGBTQ+ candidates, but never had an out transgender state representative.

Maebe Pudlo, 39, is an operations manager for the SELAH Neighborhood Homeless Coalition and an elected member of the Silver Lake Neighborhood Council. She is also transgender, and running for the Central and East L.A. state Senate seat of María Elena Durazo, who is running for county supervisor.

Pudlo, who also works as a drag queen, said that simply existing each day is a “political and social statement” for her. But she decided to run for office after seeing policy decisions affecting transgender people made without any transgender voices at the table.

“Unfortunately, our lives have been politicized and trans people have become political pawns, and it’s really disgusting to me,” Pudlo said.

Like every other queer candidate who spoke to The Times, Pudlo, who has previously run for Congress, said her platform is about more than LGBTQ+ issues. It’s also about housing and healthcare and defending democracy more broadly, she said, noting her campaign slogan is “Keep Fascism Out of California.”

Still, Pudlo said she is keenly aware of the current political threats to transgender people, and feels a deep responsibility to defend their rights — for everyone’s sake.

“This whole idea of rolling back civil rights for trans people specifically — that should be concerning for anybody who cares about democracy,” Pudlo said. “Because if they’ll do it to my community, your community is next.”

Former Palm Springs Mayor Lisa Middleton speaks at a training event for LGBTQ+ candidates and prospective candidates in L.A. in September. Also in the photo are, from left, LGBTQ+ Victory Fund President Evan Low, West Hollywood City Councilmember Danny Hang, Culver City Councilmember Bubba Fish and Virginia state Sen. Danica Roem.

(David Butow / For The Times)

Juan Camacho, a 44-year-old Echo Park resident also running for Durazo’s seat, said he feels a similar responsibility as a gay Mexican immigrant — particularly as Trump rolls out the “Project 2025 playbook” of attacking immigrants, Latinos and LGBTQ+ people, he said.

Brought to the U.S. by his parents as a toddler before becoming documented under President Reagan’s amnesty program, Camacho said he understands the fear that undocumented and mixed-status families feel, and he wants to use his privilege as a citizen now to push back.

Veteran California legislative leader Toni Atkins, who has long been out and is now running for governor, said the recent attacks on LGBTQ+ and especially transgender people have been “pretty disheartening,” but have also strengthened her resolve — after 50 years of LGBTQ+ people gaining rights in this country — to keep fighting.

“It’s what it’s always been: We want housing and healthcare and we want equal opportunity and we want to be seen as contributing members of society,” she said. “We have a responsibility to be visible and, as Harvey Milk said, to ‘give them hope.’”

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s administration asked the Supreme Court on Friday to let it enforce a passport policy for transgender and nonbinary people that requires male or female sex designations based on birth certificates.

The Justice Department appealed a lower-court order allowing people use the gender or “X” identification marker that lines up with their gender identity.

It’s the latest in a series of emergency appeals from the Trump administration, many of which have resulted in victories amid litigation, including on banning transgender people from the military.

The government argues it can’t be required to use sex designations it considers inaccurate on official documents. The plaintiffs, meanwhile, say the policy violates the rights of transgender and nonbinary Americans.

The State Department changed its passport rules after Trump handed down an executive order in January declaring the United States would “recognize two sexes, male and female,” based on what it called “an individual’s immutable biological classification.”

Transgender actor Hunter Schafer, for example, said in February that her new passport had been issued with a male gender marker, even though she submitted the application with the female gender marker she has used for years on her driver’s license and passport.

A judge blocked the Trump administration policy in June after a lawsuit from nonbinary and transgender people, some of whom said they were afraid to submit applications. An appeals court left the judge’s order in place.

The Trump administration on Friday asked the Supreme Court to put the order on hold while the lawsuit plays out.

“The Constitution does not prohibit the government from defining sex in terms of an individual’s biological classification,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote.

He pointed to the high court’s recent ruling upholding a ban on transition-related health care for transgender minors. The courts conservative majority found that law doesn’t discriminate on the basis of sex, and Sauer argued that finding also supports the Trump administration’s decision to change passport rules issued in 2021.

An attorney for the plaintiffs, on the other hand, said the passport rules are discriminatory.

“This administration has taken escalating steps to limit transgender people’s health care, speech, and other rights under the Constitution, and we are committed to defending those rights,” said Jon Davidson, senior counsel for the LGBTQ & HIV Project at the American Civil Liberties Union.

Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press.

On a Wednesday podcast, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr said ABC had to act on Jimmy Kimmel’s comments about the killing of right wing activist Charlie Kirk. “We can do it the easy way or the hard way,” the Trump appointee told right-wing commentator Benny Johnson.

The intended audience, the owners of ABC stations across the country, heard the message loud and clear. They chose the easy way.

Within hours of Carr’s comments, Nexstar, which controls 32 ABC affiliates, agreed to drop “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” indefinitely.

Walt Disney Co.-owned ABC quickly followed with its own announcement that it was pulling Kimmel from the network. Sinclair Broadcasting, a TV station company long sympathetic to conservative causes, also shelved the show and went a step further by demanding that Kimmel make a financial contribution to Kirk’s family and his conservative advocacy organization Turning Point USA.

It is not clear if or when Kimmel’s show will return. On Thursday, high-level ABC executives spoke with Kimmel and his team to see whether there was a way to “bring the temperature down,” allowing the show to return, according to a person familiar with the matter who was not authorized to comment.

The situation reflects the power that Carr has over the companies with outlets that still reach the largest audiences in the U.S., even in the age of streaming. Over-the-air TV and radio stations are the only media licensed by the government due to their use of the public airwaves, and Carr, whose commitment to President Trump is unwavering, holds the keys to their future.

Companies that own TV stations are desperate to make acquisition or merger deals so they can compete with the clout of tech companies. Nexstar, for example, needs the FCC’s permission for a proposed $6.2-billion acquisition of rival station operator Tegna, and other companies are expected to swap and acquire outlets as well. All deals have to get approval of the FCC, which is also being lobbied to lift the cap on how much of the U.S. station owners can cover.

That gives Carr tremendous leverage.

The latest trouble for Kimmel started Monday when he seemed to suggest during his monologue that Tyler Robinson, the Utah man accused in the shooting death of Kirk, might have been a pro-Trump Republican. He said MAGA supporters “are desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.”

Carr, during Johnson’s podcast, called Kimmel’s comments “the sickest conduct possible.” Carr, who has previously styled himself as a free speech absolutist, argues that stations have the right to pull the show if owners believe the content conflicts with community standards.

“Broadcast TV stations have always been required by their licenses to operate in the public interest — that includes serving the needs of their local communities,” he wrote Thursday on X. “And broadcasters have long retained the right to not air national programs that they believe are inconsistent with the public interest, including their local communities’ values. I am glad to see that many broadcasters are responding to their viewers as intended.”

Kimmel’s staff was told not to report to work Thursday but has been given no information about the program’s future. Kimmel has yet to comment.

Top Disney executives, including Chief Executive Bob Iger — who has a close relationship with the host — and Dana Walden, co-chairman of Disney Entertainment, made the decision to bench Kimmel.

Disney executives had been huddling as the crisis mounted throughout Wednesday and Kimmel and his staff had been preparing the show. The comedian planned to address the situation, according to three people close to the situation who were not authorized to speak publicly.

Some Disney execs were belatedly uncomfortable with Kimmel’s monologue, which became a lightning rod for conservatives on social media. Walden spoke with Kimmel on Wednesday, one of the knowledgeable sources said, and she and other executives became concerned that Kimmel’s planned remarks were “pretty emotional” and “did not strike the right tone.”

With only about an hour before the show was set to begin taping, the ABC executives felt they did not have time to work out an appropriate response and decided to suspend the show rather than risk an escalation of the cultural tensions, one of the sources said.

The call to dump Kimmel by Nexstar, whose founder and CEO Perry Sook has praised the administration and said lifting station ownership restrictions was the company’s top priority, put pressure on Disney to act because of the number of affiliate stations it owns.

Losing Kimmel would be a major blow to ABC.

While late-night ratings are in decline and profits on his show have greatly diminished, Kimmel is a recognizable personality who is strongly identified with the network. He has emceed the Emmys and the Oscars, and hosted game shows in addition to “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” He’s also the current host of ABC’s “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” After years of ABC being a non-entity in late-night TV, Kimmel put the network in the game when he arrived in 2003 after hosting popular shows on Comedy Central.

Trump and Kimmel have long sparred. Tensions date back to 2017, when Trump first moved into the White House and Kimmel poked fun at the new president from the Oscars stage. The comedian’s position on Trump hardened, and grew more personal, later that year after he and his wife nearly lost their infant son who was born with a rare heart condition.

Kimmel then advocated for the preservation of the Affordable Care Act, which had been a Trump target. The rift widened last year at the Oscars when Trump posted a harsh review of Kimmel on Truth Social in real time, asking whether there had ever been a worse emcee.

Kimmel read the post during the telecast, then looked at the camera and said: “Thank you for watching. I’m surprised you’re still — isn’t it past your jail time?” Since then Trump has called for Kimmel’s cancellation.

Trump has long been comedic fodder for late-night hosts, and now he is exacting his revenge with Carr’s help. He called for the firing of Stephen Colbert ahead of CBS’ decision to cancel his program, “The Late Show,” for financial reasons. That decision came after Colbert blasted parent company Paramount’s decision to pay $16 million to settle a Trump lawsuit — a move he and many others speculated was made to get FCC approval of its merger deal with Skydance Media.

Trump has also gone after NBC’s late-night hosts Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers, saying they should be next on the chopping block.

The chilling effect is already evident on ABC. “The View,” the network’s daytime talk program that airs live and regularly skewers Trump, made no mention of the Kimmel controversy on Thursday. The story was covered briefly on the network’s “Good Morning America.”

Prominent writer-producer Damon Lindelof (a creator of ABC’s hit drama “Lost” and HBO’s “The Leftovers”) posted on Instagram that he was “shocked, saddened and infuriated” by Kimmel’s suspension. Lindelof wrote he could not “in good conscience work” for Disney if the company failed to bring Kimmel back.

Disney’s action was quickly condemned by Hollywood unions, progressive groups, free speech organizations and Democratic politicians.

“The right to speak our minds and to disagree with each other — to disturb, even — is at the very heart of what it means to be a free people,” the Writers Guild of America West and East chapters said in a statement. “It is not to be denied. Not by violence, not by the abuse of governmental power, nor by acts of corporate cowardice.”

“If free speech applied only to ideas we like, we needn’t have bothered to write it into the Constitution,” the writers group said. “Shame on those in government who forget this founding truth. As for our employers, our words have made you rich. Silencing us impoverishes the whole world.”

Tino Gagliardi, international president of the American Federation of Musicians, which includes members of Kimmel’s band, added: “This is not complicated. Trump’s FCC identified speech it did not like and threatened ABC with extreme reprisals. This is state censorship.”

Four prominent unions, including Directors Guild of America and SAG-AFTRA, issued a joint statement saying that the removal of Kimmel “under government pressure” has added further uncertainty to the Hollywood workforce, which already has been reeling from a cutback in film and television production.

FCC Commissioner Anna M. Gomez, the lone Democrat on the three-member panel, said the agency “does not have the authority, the ability, or the constitutional right to police content or punish broadcasters for speech the government dislikes.” Gomez also was sharply critical of Disney, calling out what she called as “cowardly corporate capitulation.”

Disney has not commented beyond its initial announcement.

Gomez referenced an incident earlier in the week, when Trump threatened ABC News correspondent Jonathan Karl after the president bristled over a question Karl asked about a crackdown on free speech. Trump said Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi might “go after” the reporter “because you treat me so unfairly.”

“We cannot allow an inexcusable act of political violence to be twisted into a justification for government censorship and control,” Gomez said.

It wasn’t the greeting I was expecting from my dad when I stopped by for lunch Wednesday at his Anaheim home.

“¿Quién es Charlie Kirk?”

Papi still has a flip phone, so he hasn’t sunk into an endless stream of YouTube and podcasts like some of his friends. His sources of news are Univisión and the top-of-the-hour bulletins on Mexican oldies stations — far away from Kirk’s conservative supernova.

“Some political activist,” I replied. “Why?”

“The news said he got shot.”

Papi kept watering his roses while I went on my laptop to learn more. My stomach churned and my heart sank as graphic videos of Kirk taking a bullet in the neck while speaking to students at Utah Valley University peppered my social media feeds. What made me even sicker was that everyone online already thought they knew who did it, even though law enforcement hadn’t identified a suspect.

Conservatives blamed liberalism for demonizing one of their heroes and vowed vengeance. Some progressives argued that Kirk had it coming because of his long history of incendiary statements against issues including affirmative action, trans people and Islam. Both sides predicted an escalation in political violence in the wake of Kirk’s killing — fueled by the other side against innocents, of course.

It was the internet at its worst, so I closed my laptop and checked on my dad. He had moved on to cleaning the pool.

“So who was he?” Papi asked again. By then, Donald Trump had announced Kirk’s death. Text messages streamed in from my colleagues. I gave my dad a brief sketch of Kirk’s life, and he frowned when I said the commentator had supported Trump’s mass deportation dreams.

Hate wasn’t on Papi’s mind, however.

“It’s sad that he got killed,” Papi said. “May God bless him and his family.”

“Are politics going to get worse now?” he added.

It’s a question that friends and family have been asking me ever since Kirk’s assassination. I’m the political animal in their circles, the one who bores everyone at parties as I yap about Trump and Gov. Gavin Newsom while they want to talk Dodgers and Raiders. They’re too focused on raising families and trying to prosper in these hard times to post a hot take on social media about political personalities they barely know.

They’ve long been over this nation’s partisan divide, because they work and play just fine with people they don’t agree with. They’re tired of being told to loathe someone over ideological differences or blindly worship a person or a cause because it’s supposedly in their best interests. They might not have heard of Kirk before his assassination, but they now worry about what’s next — because a killing this prominent is usually a precursor of worse times ahead.

I wasn’t naive enough to think that the killing of someone as divisive as Kirk would bring Americans together to denounce political terrorism and forge a kinder nation. I knew that each side would embarrass itself with terrible takes and that Trump wouldn’t even pretend to be a unifier.

But the collective dumpster fire we got was worse than I had imagined.

President Donald Trump shakes hands with moderator Charlie Kirk, during a Generation Next White House forum at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House complex in Washington, Thursday, March 22, 2018.

(Manuel Balce Ceneta / Associated Press)

Although conservatives brag that no riots have sparked, as happened after George Floyd’s murder in 2020, they’re largely staying silent as the loudest of Kirk’s supporters vow to crush the left once and for all. The Trump administration is already promising a crackdown against the left in Kirk’s name, and no GOP leaders are complaining. People are losing their jobs because of social media posts critical of Kirk, and his fans are cheering the cancel cavalcade.

Meanwhile, progressives are flummoxed by the right, yet again. They can’t understand why vigils nationwide for someone they long cast as a white nationalist, a fascist and worse are drawing thousands. They’re dismissing those who attend as deluded cultists, hardening hearts on each side even more. They’re posting Kirk’s past statements on social media as proof that they’re correct about him — but that’s like holding up a sheet of paper to dam the Mississippi.

I hadn’t paid close attention to Kirk, mostly because he didn’t have a direct connection to Southern California politics. I knew he had helped turn young voters toward Trump, and I loathed his noxious comments that occasionally caught my attention. I appreciated that he was willing to argue his views with critics, even if his style was more Cartman from “South Park” (which satirized Kirk’s college tours just weeks ago) than Ronald Reagan versus Walter Mondale.

I understand why his fans are grieving and why opponents are sickened at his canonization by Trump, who seems to think that only conservatives are the victims of political violence and that liberals can only be perpetrators. I also know that a similar thing would happen if, heaven forbid, a progressive hero suffered Kirk’s tragic end — way too many people on the right would be dancing a jig and cracking inappropriate jokes, while the left would be whitewashing the sins of the deceased.

We’re witnessing a partisan passion play, with the biggest losers our democracy and the silent majority of Americans like my father who just want to live life. Weep or critique — it’s your right to do either. But don’t drag the whole country into your culture war. Those who have navigated between the Scylla and Charybdis of right and left for too long want to sail to calmer waters. Turning Kirk’s murder into a modern-day Ft. Sumter when we aren’t even certain of his suspected killer’s motives is a guarantee for chaos.

I never answered my dad’s question about what’s next for us politically. In the days since, I keep rereading what Kirk said about empathy. He derided the concept on a 2022 episode of his eponymous show as “a made-up, new age term that … does a lot of damage.”

Kirk was wrong about many things, but especially that. Empathy means we try to understand each other’s experiences — not agree, not embrace, but understand. Empathy connects us to others in the hope of creating something bigger and better.

It’s what allows me to feel for Kirk’s loved ones and not wish his fate on anyone, no matter how much I dislike them or their views. It’s the only thing that ties me to Kirk — he loved this country as much as I do, even if our views about what makes it great were radically different.

Preaching empathy might be a fool’s errand. But at a time when we’re entrenched deeper in our silos than ever, it’s the only way forward. We need to understand why wishing ill on the other side is wrong and why such talk poisons civic life and dooms everyone.

Kirk was no saint, but if his assassination makes us take a collective deep breath and figure out how to fix this fractured nation together, he will have truly died a martyr’s death.

A series of federal actions aimed at pressuring states to allow parents to opt out of school vaccine mandates for religious or personal reasons threatens to undermine California’s ironclad ban on such exemptions.

California is one of just five states that bans any non-medical exemptions, the result of a landmark 2015 law passed in the wake of the Disneyland measles outbreak. Connecticut, New York, Maine, and West Virginia have similar statutes.

The law is credited with bringing California’s rate of kindergartners vaccinated against the measles to 96.1% in the 2024-25 school year, up from 92.6% in 2014-15, even as the national rate declined. California is one of just 10 states with a kindergarten measles vaccination rate that exceeds the 95% threshold experts say is needed to achieve herd immunity.

If vaccine mandates are weakened, “we’re going to have more outbreaks, and schools are going to be less safe for the families who have children who are vulnerable,” said Dr. Eric Ball, a pediatrician in Orange County and chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics California.

Engage with our community-funded journalism as we delve into child care, transitional kindergarten, health and other issues affecting children from birth through age 5.

Key actions to allow for vaccine exemptions include:

• Legislation introduced in Congress last month would withhold federal education funding from states without religious exemptions.
• A letter from the Department of Health and Human Services threatened to withhold federal vaccine funding from states that have any form of religious freedom or personal conscience laws but do not allow exemptions to vaccines. The move is “part of a larger effort by HHS to strengthen enforcement of laws protecting conscience and religious exercise.”
• Several lawsuits winding their way through the courts from parents — including in California — seek the right to a religious exemption, which may eventually come before the Supreme Court.

Legal experts say that taken together, these moves reveal a concerted effort to chip away at limits states like California have placed on parents’ ability to send their unvaccinated children to school.

“We should assume that every aspect of the administration, at least three justices of the Supreme Court, and a significant contingent in Congress are actively trying to implement changes to the law that would invalidate California’s … approach to not allowing non-medical exemptions,” said Lindsay Wiley, a law professor at UCLA.

In West Virginia, the approach is already proving successful. Despite the state legislature recently rejecting a bill that would have permitted religious exemptions for the first time, Republican Gov. Patrick Morrisey signed an executive order allowing them, bolstered by a letter of support from HHS.

Vaccinations and syringes at Larchmont Pediatrics in Los Angeles.

(Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times)

“Vaccination is considered one of public health’s greatest achievements, preventing the spread of serious illnesses, reducing hospitalizations and saving lives,” the statement said. “CDPH remains committed to ensuring that all Californians continue to have access to safe and effective vaccines that are based on credible, transparent and science-based evidence.”

The federal actions are occurring in a moment of growing anti-vaccine fervor within the Trump administration. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has long been an outspoken critic of vaccines, including the vaccine to prevent measles. As secretary of HHS, he has defunded mRNA research, limited COVID-19 shots to the elderly and those with preexisting medical conditions, and pledged to reveal a link between vaccines and autism.

California’s evolution on vaccine mandates

In 1961, California became one of the first states to permit residents to opt out of vaccines for a broad range of personal beliefs, as part of a law mandating the polio vaccine for school attendance.

For decades, few parents claimed the exemption, and the rate of children opting out of vaccines for non-medical reasons stayed around 0.5%, said Dr. Richard Pan, the former state senator who authored the 2015 law eliminating non-medical exemptions.

Pan said the rate of exemptions began to climb in the mid-2000s, when actress Jenny McCarthy appeared on Oprah and claimed that vaccines had caused her son’s autism. “But what really gave fuel” was the advent of Facebook and Twitter, said Pan. “Social media really connected people who are anti-vax and created an echo chamber.”

By the 2013-14 school year, 3.1% of California kindergartners were receiving a non-medical exemption to at least one required vaccine. The rate of kindergarteners fully vaccinated against the measles slipped to 92.3% — well below the 95% required for herd immunity.

In 2014, a single measles case at Disneyland spread to more than 140 people across the country, an outbreak that epidemiologists said was fueled by vaccine refusals. In this moment of crisis, Pan introduced SB277, making California the first state in nearly 35 years to eliminate non-medical vaccine exemptions.

The legislation received the support of many parents, especially those whose children could not be vaccinated for medical reasons and relied on the immunity of people around them. “The whole purpose of 277 was actually to protect the rights and the freedoms of families and their children to get an education who could not get vaccinated,” said Pan.

Despite bitter debate, no major religious denominations opposed the bill, Pan said.

“This really isn’t about religion,” Pan said. “This is about trying to find a loophole or an excuse for someone who doesn’t want to vaccinate their child.”

Parents say California’s mandate violates religious beliefs

A contingent of parents say their sincere religious beliefs prevent them from getting their children vaccinated.

In 2023, Amy and Steve Doescher of Placerville brought a federal lawsuit, along with two other families, against California claiming that SB277 had violated their right to freely exercise their religion by preventing them from sending their 16-year-old daughter to public school.

The Doeschers, who attend a church near their home, “prayed extensively and consulted the Bible when deciding whether to vaccinate their children, and they arrived at the firm religious conviction that vaccinations violate their creed,” according to a complaint filed as part of the lawsuit.

Their daughter, who is enrolled in a charter school independent study program, is unable to have “the typical interactions with children that ‘normal’ children get. This has caused much stigma.”

The lawsuit alleges that her parents have had to enroll her in gymnastics classes and spend $10,000 per year on independent study costs, “to make up for the socialization shortcomings caused by SB277.”

While the lawsuit was dismissed in June, it is now on appeal at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Lawyers in a similar New York lawsuit brought by Amish parents have requested review from the Supreme Court.

“I do think it’s a cumulative moment of change,” said Christina Hildebrand, president and founder of A Voice for Choice, an advocacy group that sponsored the California lawsuit.

“If vaccines are so effective and they don’t have risk involved, then people should want to get them,” she said. “How good really is the product if you’re having to put a mandate on them?”

UCLA Law’s Wiley said she is sympathetic to sincere religious objectors, and herd immunity can still be reached even if a small number of people opt out. The problem, she said, is that they’re difficult for states to police for validity and “can really open the floodgates to vastly diminished vaccination rates.”

Dorit Reiss, a law professor at the University of California at San Francisco who studies vaccines, said religious exemptions are often “used as a fig leaf for people who have safety concerns. The way the system works is that it privileges the good liars.”

As part of her research, she has found “a whole industry of people trying to help each other get exemptions” online, including those who offer sample requests to parents and workshops on how to claim a religious exemption for non-religious reasons.

Reiss points to numerous studies finding that making exemptions broader and easier to get tends to lead to lower vaccination rates and more outbreaks.

The volatile landscape for vaccine mandates

Since the COVID pandemic, states across the country have experienced a decline in the rate of kindergartners who are fully vaccinated, and an increase in parents seeking exemptions, according to a recent report from KFF, a nonprofit health research group.

Last week, Florida’s surgeon general announced the state would no longer require children to be vaccinated in order to attend public school, something that all 50 states currently require.

Threats are also mounting from Washington, D.C. The GRACE Act, which was introduced in Congress last month by Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL), would withhold federal education funding from any state that does not offer parents the right to opt out of vaccines for religious reasons.

The bill, if eventually approved and signed into law by President Trump, would also explicitly prevent states, including California, from requiring any documentation from parents to prove a sincere religious conviction against vaccines.

“Freedom of speech and religion is the most sacred right guaranteed under our Constitution,” Rep. Steube said in a statement to The Times. “No student or their family should ever be coerced into sacrificing their faith or jumping through loopholes to comply with a vaccine requirement.”

Last week, Kennedy weighed in on the issue. He said in a letter that if a state already has statutes on the books protecting religious freedom or personal conscience in any form, those laws must extend to vaccine opt-outs. If states with such laws do not comply with the directive, they could lose funding for the federal Vaccines for Children Program, which funds vaccines for low-income children.

California does not have religious freedom or personal conscience statues. But 29 other states have passed religious freedom laws, and 18 have parental rights laws, which legal experts said could be used by the federal government to compel states to offer vaccine opt-outs.

“States have the authority to balance public health goals with individual freedom, and honoring those decisions builds trust” Kennedy wrote. “Protecting both public health and personal liberty is how we restore faith in our institutions and Make America Healthy Again.”

Several legal experts said the approach was alarming.

“I’m very concerned that this is part of a playbook where they’re going on a state and federal level, to push on these laws,” said Richard Hughes, a lawyer with Epstein Becker Green in Washington, D.C., who has been working on vaccine law for two decades. “This is a massive federal overreach, and it’s incredibly inappropriate.”

This article is part of The Times’ early childhood education initiative, focusing on the learning and development of California children from birth to age 5. For more information about the initiative and its philanthropic funders, go to latimes.com/earlyed.

Mark Volman, the singer who co-founded the buoyant 1960s hitmakers the Turtles and was half of the humorous harmony duo Flo & Eddie, has died. He was 78.

Representatives for Volman confirmed the death to Rolling Stone, citing a “brief, unexpected illness.” In 2020, Volman was diagnosed with Lewy Body Dementia, but continued touring and only announced his diagnosis in 2023.

When promoting his memoir “Happy Forever: My Musical Adventures with the Turtles, Frank Zappa, T. Rex, Flo & Eddie, and More” in 2023, Volman went public with his 2020 diagnosis of Lewy body dementia, a disease that results in a decline in cognitive ability, affecting reasoning, memory and movement.

In a People magazine story, Volman accepted his fate: “I got hit by the knowledge that this was going to create a whole new part of my life. And I said, ‘OK, whatever’s going to happen will happen, but I’ll go as far as I can.’”

Volman’s partner in both the Turtles and Flo & Eddie was Howard Kaylan, a high-school friend who turned into a lifelong creative partner. Sharing a taste for sweet melodies, cultural fads and unrepentant silliness, Volman and Kaylan adeptly navigated the cultural changes of the 1960s, steering the Turtles from surf-rock survivors to psychedelic freaks over the course of a decade.

The group’s sweet spot arrived in the second half of the 1960s, when they polished their Southern Californian folk-rock with studio savvy, creating hits — “Happy Together,” “She’d Rather Be With Me,” “Elenore” and “You Showed Me” — that appealed to mainstream listeners — they were the favorite band of Richard Nixon’s daughter Tricia, even playing the White House in 1970 — while winking at hipper audiences.

As they drifted away from the middle of the road, the Turtles could occasionally give the sense that they were too smart for the room; one of their best albums, 1968’s “The Turtles Present the Battle of the Bands,” was constructed as a concept album where the group adopted a different guise and musical style for each track.

The Turtles in 1967, clockwise from top left: Al Nichol, Jim Tucker, Mark Volman, Howard Kaylan, Johnny Barbara and Jim Pon.

(Central Press / Hulton Archive / Getty Images)

Volman and Kaylan capitalized on this quirk when they rechristened themselves as Flo & Eddie, a moniker they devised after a bitter legal battle with their former record label left them without the right to perform either as the Turtles or using their own names. During this period, Frank Zappa invited Flo & Eddie to join his Mothers of Invention, giving the duo a boost that led to an enduring career.

Flo & Eddie specialized in providing harmonic support to high profile acts: they toured with Alice Cooper, sang on T. Rex’s landmark glam album “Electric Warrior” and were recruited to sing on Bruce Springsteen’s “Hungry Heart” when the Boss was looking for Beach Boys-like harmonies. On their own, Volman and Kaylan also honed their comedic shtick as recording artists, later taking their act to radio and, once they reacquired the rights to the Turtles moniker, on the road, playing the oldies circuit into the 2010s.

Unlike many other oldies acts, Volman and Kaylan possessed sharp business skills, acquired after their messy fallout with their record label, White Whale. Once they regained their master tapes, they licensed their catalog to reissue labels and kept a vigilant eye on how their recordings were disseminated in the marketplace.

On realizing that the Turtles’ “You Showed Me” provided a pivotal sample on De La Soul‘s 1989 debut album, “3 Feet High and Rising,” the duo sued the rap pioneers for $2.5 million in exemplary and punitive damages. The matter was settled out of court in favor of Volman and Kaylan; while the terms were not publicly disclosed, they reportedly were awarded $1.7 million in damages. The lawsuit and its fallout effectively ended the golden age of sampling in hip-hop.

Mark Volman during the 10th anniversary of the Happy Together tour at Thousand Oaks Civic Arts Plaza in 2019.

(Scott Dudelson / Getty Images)

Born in Los Angeles on April 19, 1947, Volman grew up in a musical household in the neighborhood of Westchester. Even when he was young, relatives were struck by his exuberant personality. His aunt Ann Becker recalled in “Happy Forever”: “I can remember my mother shaking her head and saying, ‘That boy is so smart — he shouldn’t be so silly.’”

By the time he enrolled at Westchester High — his classmates included comedian Phil Hartman and Manson Family member Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme — Volman had gravitated toward irreverence.

Meeting New York transplant Kaylan in choir, Volman soon became part of the Crossfires, playing saxophone alongside his new friend in the surf-rock combo. The Crossfires had two singles to their name before they signed to the fledgling White Whale Records in 1965. Already in the process of abandoning surf for folk-rock — Volman and Kaylan swapped their saxes for lead vocals — the group’s members accepted their new label’s suggestion to rename themselves; they rejected the stylized spelling of the Tyrtles in favor of the Turtles.

Taking a cue from the Byrds’ hit version of Bob Dylan’s “Mr. Tambourine Man,” the Turtles released a revved-up cover of Dylan’s “It Ain’t Me Babe” that squarely hit the zeitgeist, climbing into the Billboard Top 10 in summer 1965. Volman later remembered, “I graduated from high school in February 1965 and was on tour in June with a Top 10 record and on the Dick Clark Show.”

A couple of spirited sequels, “Let Me Be” and “You Baby,” kept the band in the Top 40 into 1966 but the Turtles’ hot streak quickly cooled, as a series of singles — including “Outside Chance,” written by White Whale staffer Warren Zevon — barely scraped the charts. “Happy Together,” a song rejected by a number of pop groups, revived the group’s fortunes, thanks in part to a sterling arrangement masterminded by new bassist Chip Douglas.

“Happy Together” topped the charts and would become one of the standards of its era, appearing often in commercials and films. In 1967, it propelled the Turtles back to the upper reaches of the charts, a place they’d stay through 1969, as they accumulated such hits as “She’d Rather Be With Me” and “Elenore.”

By far the biggest act on the small-scale White Whale, the Turtles were subjected to pressure by the label to record more commercial material, yet Volman and Kaylan kept pushing the band to make hip music. When the label suggested firing the rest of the Turtles, the singers arranged for the remaining three members to share songwriting credits on “The Turtles Present the Battle of the Bands,” the first album they released after the success of “Happy Together.” On their final album, “Turtle Soup,” the Turtles hired Ray Davies as their producer; it was his first production outside his main band, the Kinks.

Tensions between the Turtles and White Whale escalated in 1970, leading the group to disband. In turn, the label exercised a clause in the band‘s recording contract that prevented the members from performing either “individually or collectively,” effectively barring Volman and Kaylan from continuing to work either as a group or as themselves. The pair decided to call themselves the Phlorescent Leech & Eddie, a name that would swiftly be shortened to Flo & Eddie; Volman was the former, Kaylan the latter.

Zappa brought the duo into his Mothers of Invention ensemble not long after the implosion of the Turtles. They stayed with him through an eventful year that included a concert in Montreux, Switzerland, that ended with the venue engulfed in fire; Deep Purple memorialized the event in “Smoke on the Water.”

Alice Cooper, second from left, with Mark Volman (drinking beverage) and bandmates in Copenhagen, Denmark, 1972.

(Jorgen Angel / Redferns / Getty Images)

Beginning with 1972’s “The Phlorescent Leech & Eddie,” Flo & Eddie released a series of increasingly facetious albums throughout the 1970s, but they had greater success singing harmonies for T. Rex and Cooper. “Hungry Heart,” Springsteen’s first Top 10 hit, served as a curtain call for this period of Flo & Eddie’s career. Soon, the duo put their days as recording artists to rest. While they still would contribute original music to animated television shows, including specials focusing on “Strawberry Shortcake” and “The Care Bears” series, the duo stopped writing and recording new Flo & Eddie music.

The move coincided with the duo finally winning back the rights to their names. Volman and Kalyan began this process in 1974, when they acquired the Turtles’ master recordings when White Whale assets were up for auction.

A decade later, they were able to tour as The Turtles … featuring Flo & Eddie, a billing they’d retain into the 2010s, until Kaylan retired from the road in 2018. With Ron Dante filling in for Kaylan, Volman continued performing as the Turtles as part of their regular Happy Together package tours.

Although Flo & Eddie embraced their status on the oldies circuit, they hadn’t faded entirely from modern music. When De La Soul sampled “You Showed Me” for their track “Transmitting Live From Mars” in 1989, the trio failed to clear the rights prior to release, so Volman and Kaylan sued the group, winning a large settlement that established a precedent for sample clearance in hip-hop.

The duo launched another major lawsuit in 2013 when they filed suit against Sirius XM for failing to pay sound recording royalties in California, New York and Florida. A California judge ruled in the duo’s favor in 2014, while a Florida judge ruled for Sirius XM in 2015. Although a settlement was reached in 2016, Sirius XM would win subsequent legal appeals in Florida and California.

Volman went back to school in 1992, pursuing a bachelor’s degree at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles. After earning a master’s degree in screenwriting in 1999 at Loyola Marymount, Volman soon moved into teaching, eventually becoming an associate professor at the Mike Curb College of Entertainment & Music Business at Belmont University in Nashville, Tenn.

Volman is survived by his daughters, Sarina Marie and Hallie Rae, both from his marriage to Patricia Lee.

More details are emerging about a company that allegedly paid Los Angeles Clippers star Kawhi Leonard millions to circumvent the NBA’s salary cap, including that the team came close in 2021 to granting naming rights for its Inglewood arena to Aspiration Partners.

Clippers owner Steve Ballmer nearly granted naming rights to the company, but ended up choosing financial services firm Intuit to grace the $2-billion venue, a source familiar with the matter said. Intuit, which has a $186-billion net worth and developed TurboTax, Credit Karma and QuickBooks, ended up paying a reported $500 million over 23 years for the naming rights.

Four years later, Aspiration, a sustainability firm that also generated and sold carbon credits, is out of business. Co-founder Joseph Sanberg has agreed to plead guilty to defrauding multiple investors and lenders. Listed among creditors in Aspiration’s bankruptcy documents is Leonard, raising questions about whether his $28-million endorsement deal with the company skirted NBA salary cap rules.

One of the investors Sanberg defrauded was Ballmer, listed by Fortune magazine as the sixth-richest person in the world, with a net worth of $157 billion. The Clippers owner invested $50 million in Aspiration, which in turn entered into a $330-million sponsorship agreement with the team.

This week, the Athletic reported allegations that Aspiration agreed to pay Leonard $28 million for a job with no responsibilities, in an effort to circumvent the NBA salary cap. Ballmer was interviewed Thursday night by ESPN’s Ramona Shelburne and denied involvement in Leonard’s deal with Aspiration, but the NBA has launched an investigation.

Ballmer said he was “conned” by the company and that the Clippers did not circumvent NBA salary cap rules, which the team was accused of doing in a podcast report by Pablo Torre of the Athletic.

A plane flies over the Intuit Dome in Inglewood.

(Wally Skalij / Los Angeles Times)

Ballmer told Shelburne that Aspiration offered more than Intuit for dome naming rights, and a Clippers spokesman confirmed that account. However, Ballmer insisted that the Clippers did not violate NBA rules against skirting the salary cap, and the team had agreed to a contract extension with Leonard and the sponsorship deal with Aspiration before the player and the company met.

“We were done with Kawhi, we were done with Aspiration,” Ballmer said. “The deals were all locked and loaded. Then, they did request to be introduced to Kawhi, and under the rules, we can introduce our sponsors to our athletes. We just can’t be involved.”

The Clippers signed Leonard to a four-year, $176-million contract in August 2021 even though he was recovering from a partially torn ACL in his right knee that kept him sidelined the entire 2021-22 season. Ballmer said the sponsorship deal with Aspiration was completed in September 2021 and that the Clippers introduced Leonard to Aspiration two months later.

“As part of our cooperation with the Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission, we produced texts and emails,” Ballmer said. “It was part of the document production in their investigation. We even found the email that made the first introduction [between Aspiration and Leonard]. It was early in November.

“Where could any of this circumvention happened? It couldn’t have, it didn’t. The introduction got made and they were off to the races on their own. We weren’t involved.”

The Boston Sports Journal reported that Leonard did not appear in promotional material as other endorsers did because Aspiration executives “saw no brand synergy with Leonard and chose not to use his services. They instead preferred to partner with climate-focused influencers.”

Ballmer couldn’t explain why Leonard did no marketing or endorsement work for Aspiration, telling Shelburne that he never spoke with the player about his deal with the company.

“I don’t know why they did what they did and I don’t know how different it is, I really don’t,” he said. “And, frankly, any speculation would be crazy. These were guys who committed fraud. Look, they conned me. I made an investment in these guys thinking it was on the up-and-up and they conned me. At this stage, I have no ability to predict why they did anything they did.”

The salary cap is a dollar amount that limits what teams can spend on player payroll. The purpose of the cap is to ensure parity, preventing the wealthiest teams from outspending smaller markets to acquire the best players.

Circumventing the cap by paying a player outside of his contract is strictly prohibited. Teams that exceed the cap must pay luxury tax penalties that grow increasingly severe. Revenues from the tax penalties are then distributed in part to smaller-market teams and in part to teams that do not exceed the salary cap.

The NBA said it will investigate the allegations laid out by Torre. Ballmer said he welcomes the probe. If allegations were made against a team other than the Clippers, “I’d want the league to investigate, to take it seriously,” he said.

“We know the rules, and if anything is not clear, we remind ourselves what the rules are. And we make it absolutely clear we will abide by those rules.”

The cap was implemented before the 1984-85 season at a mere $3.6 million. Ten years later, it was $15.9 million, and 10 years after that it had risen to $43.9 million. By the 2014-15 season it was $63.1 million.

The biggest spike came before the 2016-2017 season when it jumped to $94 million because of an influx of revenue from a new nine-year, $24-billion media rights deal with ESPN and TNT.

Salary cap rules negotiated between the NBA and the players’ union are spelled out in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Proven incidents of teams circumventing the cap are few, with a violation by the Minnesota Timberwolves in 2000 serving as the most egregious.

The Timberwolves made a secret agreement with free agent and former No. 1 overall draft pick Joe Smith, signing him to a succession of below-market one-year deals in order to enable the team to go over the cap with a huge contract ahead of the 2001-02 season.

The NBA voided his contract, fined the Timberwolves $3.5 million, and stripped them of five first-round draft picks — two of which were later returned. Also, owner Glen Taylor and general manager Kevin McHale were suspended.

Then-NBA commissioner David Stern told the Minnesota Star Tribune at the time: “What was done here was a fraud of major proportions. There were no fewer than five undisclosed contracts tightly tucked away, in the hope that they would never see the light of day. … The magnitude of this offense was shocking.”

According to Article 13 of the CBA, if the Clippers were found to have circumvented the cap, it would be a first offense punishable by a $4.5-million fine, the loss of one first-round draft pick, and voiding of Leonard’s contract. However, the Clippers don’t have a first-round pick until 2027.

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. — Florida will work to phase out all childhood vaccine mandates in the state, building on the effort by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis to curb vaccine requirements and other health mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic.

DeSantis also announced on Wednesday the creation of a state-level “Make America Healthy Again” commission modeled after similar initiatives pushed at the federal level by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

On the vaccines, state Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo cast current requirements in schools and elsewhere as an “immoral” intrusion on people’s rights bordering on “slavery,” and hampers parents’ ability to make health decisions for their children.

“People have a right to make their own decisions, informed decisions,” said Ladapo, who has frequently clashed with the medical establishment, at a news conference in Valrico, Florida, in the Tampa area. “They don’t have the right to tell you what to put in your body. Take it away from them.”

The state Health Department, Ladapo said, can scrap its own rules for some vaccine mandates, but others would require action by the Florida Legislature. He did not specify any particular vaccines but repeated several times the effort would end “all of them. Every last one of them.”

Florida would be the first state to eliminate so many vaccine mandates, Ladapo added.

In Florida, vaccine mandates for child day care facilities and public schools include shots for measles, chickenpox, hepatitis B, Diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis (DTaP), polio and other diseases, according to the state Health Department’s website.

Under DeSantis, Florida resisted imposing COVID vaccines on schoolchildren, requiring “passports” for places that draw crowds, school closures and mandates that workers get the shots to keep their jobs.

“I don’t think there’s another state that’s done as much as Florida. We want to stay ahead of the curve,” the governor said.

The state “MAHA” commission would look into such things as allowing informed consent in medical matters, promoting safe and nutritious food, boosting parental rights regarding medical decisions about their children, and eliminating “medical orthodoxy that is not supported by the data,” DeSantis said. The commission will be chaired by Lt. Gov. Jay Collins and Florida first lady Casey DeSantis.

“We’re getting government out of the way, getting government out of your lives,” Collins said.

The commission’s work will help inform a large “medical freedom package” to be introduced in the Legislature next session, which would address the vaccine mandates required by state law and make permanent the recent state COVID decisions relaxing restrictions, DeSantis said.

“There will be a broad package,” the governor said.

Anderson writes for the Associated Press.

Matthew Stafford will start at quarterback and the plan is for Alaric Jackson to start at left tackle on Sunday in the season opener against the Houston Texans at SoFi Stadium, Rams coach Sean McVay said Monday.

Stafford, 37, practiced the last few weeks after sitting out training camp and several weeks because of a back issue.

“He’ll be good,” to start against the Texans, McVay said during a videoconference with reporters after the Rams completed a no-pads practice that was closed to the media.

Jackson, who signed a $35-million extension in March, practiced Monday for the first time since he was diagnosed with blood clots in his legs in June. Jackson had been doing individual drills with trainers and had participated with starters in jog-throughs.

“He earned the right to be in the position, where you pay him — it was a big priority for us to get him back,” McVay said. “He’s done everything in his power to be ready to go. This was always the end goal in mind — is to be ready to go against the Texans.”

After Jackson was diagnosed with blood clots for the second time in his career — he also dealt with the issue in 2022 — the Rams signed veteran tackle D.J. Humphries. Warren McClendon Jr. and David Quessenberry are other tackles that could play opposite right tackle Rob Havenstein if Jackson is injured, limited or struggles.

But McVay sounded optimistic that the Rams would continue to manage Jackson’s condition and that he would be ready for Sunday.

“He’s taken great care of himself, and he’s put himself in a rare position that I do believe to step in and play at a good clip,” McVay said, adding, “There’s nothing like actually playing real football … but [Monday] was a great step in the right direction.”

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

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

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

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

Here are some things to know about his case:

‘You can’t win every case’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taking a risk

Asylum, however, could end the fight.

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Not going to let this go’

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

That’s where the risk comes in.

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

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

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

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

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

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

SAN DIEGO — The Dodgers finally landed a lot of little jabs as an offense Sunday against the San Diego Padres.

And in a pivotal, sweep-evading 8-2 win at Petco Park — which once again tied the two teams for first place in the National League West standings — it allowed their slumping lineup to deliver some badly needed knockout blows.

For the first time this weekend, the Dodgers looked like themselves at the plate.

They bashed four home runs, none bigger than a tie-breaking three-run shot from backup catcher Dalton Rushing in the seventh that ultimately decided the game.

They strung together seven hits and four walks, cracking a Padres pitching staff that had smothered them over the first two games in this rivalry’s final renewal of the season.

Most importantly, however, they did all the little things that have too often gone missing during their recent two-month funk; one in which they’ve ranked 24th in the majors in scoring since the start of July, and let what was once a nine-game lead in the division turn into a dogfight down the stretch.

They extended at-bats. Battled with two strikes. And, at long last, earned the kind of pitches their star-studded roster could wallop.

“For us to come out here and execute as an offense, way better than we did the last couple days, that’s a big boost for us,” said first baseman Freddie Freeman, who had two home runs to help the Dodgers salvage the series finale.

“When you expand the zone, the slugging percentage is going to go down, because pitchers are going to continue to expand,” manager Dave Roberts added. “But when you earn good counts and get good pitches, control the zone, then slug happens. You can’t always chase it. Which, I thought, today we did a really good job of.

Ahead of first pitch, Roberts spoke at length about the team’s recent offensive struggles — following up on his Saturday night critique of the club’s increasingly all-or-nothing approach.

“We haven’t really been in-sync,” Roberts said. “It’s been disjointed a lot, as far as the offense.”

Freddie Freeman, right, is congratulated by third base coach Dino Ebel after hitting a home run in the sixth inning Sunday.

(Derrick Tuskan / Associated Press)

When asked if that meant his team needed to adopt more of a small-ball mentality, however, Roberts pushed back.

“I think it’s a fair question,” he said. “But I couldn’t disagree more.”

After all, his team is still stocked full of All-Stars, MVPs and future Hall of Famers. At their core, they are built to bludgeon opponents — not slap singles and drop down sacrifice bunts.

“Slugging is still a part of it,” he said. “I definitely don’t want guys to hit like I did.”

Around the margins, though, there were ways Roberts felt the Dodgers (74-57) could better position themselves to do that. Like trying to work better counts, stay alive with two strikes, and striking a better balance between patience and aggression.

“I want my cake, and [to] eat it as well,” he quipped, a devilish smile on his face.

“I’d be shocked,” he added, “if we don’t see a different offensive output from here forward, starting today.”

The change started in the first inning, with the Dodgers putting Padres starter Nick Pivetta under immediate stress.

Shohei Ohtani drew a five-pitch leadoff walk. Mookie Betts shortened up his swing on an 0-and-2 slider to line a single up the middle. Freeman loaded the bases by grinding out a full-count free pass.

It was a string of small victories, that provided cleanup hitter Teoscar Hernández the perfect chance to slug.

Hernández tried to, getting a fastball over the plate in a 3-and-1 count and launching a deep fly ball that seemed destined to be a grand slam. The drive, however, hung up just enough for Ramón Laureano to rob it at the wall.

The sacrifice fly brought in the Dodgers’ only run of the inning — giving them a 1-0 lead that would soon be erased on Elias Díaz’s two-run homer in the third off Yoshinobu Yamamoto (the only runs he allowed in a six-inning start).

Dodgers starting pitcher Yoshinobu Yamamoto delivers against the Padres in the first inning Sunday.

(Sean M. Haffey / Getty Images)

Still, it set the tone for a flurry of offense that would follow, when a weekend of non-existent offense finally started to turn.

“Getting the guys on and scoring in that first inning was huge,” Freeman sad. “Even though we could have got more out of it, just getting one run across was a good boost for us coming off the last couple games.”

In the sixth, Freeman hit his first home run of the day, crushing another center-cut fastball from Pivetta to right-center for a tying blast.

Then, against Padres reliever Jeremiah Estrada in the seventh, the club put all the pieces together in a five-run rally.

Andy Pages rolled a single through the left side to lead off. Michael Conforto came up next, fouled off a full-count slider, then took a borderline fastball at the top of the zone for a stress-inducing walk.

Miguel Rojas couldn’t get a bunt down after that, eventually swinging away for a fly out to center.

But, in what was easily his best moment of a trying rookie season, Rushing connected on the fatal blow seven pitches later — resetting after a bad first strike call, fouling off his own two-strike slider to keep the at-bat alive, then clobbering another slider to right for his go-ahead three-run homer.

“When I’m in the box and I get put in a hole, it’s almost like, ‘All right, I’m going to find my way out,’” said Rushing, who entered the day batting just .184 with two home runs. “I kind of played the game with him. He threw every pitch that he had, and I was totally banking on just being able to put a good swing on the ball whatever he threw.”

“I think today,” Roberts added, “was a big step in the right direction for him.”

The same, of course, was true of the Dodgers’ entire offense — which also got a second homer from Freeman later in the seventh, then another when Ohtani belted his 45th homer of the season in the ninth.

They got back to doing the little things right. They reeled off one big swing after another as a result.

“Today was more indicative of what we’re going to do, we expect, going forward,” Roberts said. “The fight, the grind, taking what the pitcher is giving you — and then if there’s slug there, it’s there. Just the byproduct of good at-bats all day.”

As the Trump administration continues to ramp up immigration enforcement actions, a group of lawmakers is suing Immigration and Customs Enforcement for placing restrictions on detention center visits — obstructing Congress’ role in overseeing government functions.

Twelve House Democrats filed a lawsuit challenging new guidelines that require advance notice for oversight visits and render certain facilities off-limits. “No child should be sleeping on concrete, and no sick person should be denied care,” said Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Los Angeles). “Yet that’s exactly what we keep hearing is happening inside Trump’s detention centers.”

These lawmakers are right to seek access to detention facilities. Detention centers have long been plagued by poor conditions, so the need for oversight is urgent. With record numbers of migrants being detained, the public has a right to know how people in the government’s custody are being treated.

The U.S. operates the world’s largest immigration detention system, at a cost of $3 billion a year. This money is appropriated by Congress — and comes with conditions.

Under existing law, none of the funds given to Homeland Security may be used to prevent members of Congress from conducting oversight visits of “any facility operated by or for the Department of Homeland Security used to detain or otherwise house aliens.” In addition, the law states that members of Congress are not required to “provide prior notice of the intent to enter a facility.” So ICE’s attempt to place limits on oversight appears to be illegal.

The restrictions are also problematic because they claim to exempt the agency’s field offices from oversight. However, migrants are being locked up in such offices, including at the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building in Los Angeles, and 26 Federal Plaza in New York City. In the former, one detainee reported being fed only once a day, at 3 a.m. In the latter, as many as 80 detainees have been crammed into a single room amid sweltering summer temperatures. These offices were never set up to house people overnight or for days or weeks. If they are functioning as de facto detention centers, then they must be subject to inspections.

Congressional oversight of immigration detention is vital right now. The current capacity for U.S. detention facilities is 41,000. Yet the government was holding nearly 57,000 people as of July 27. That means facilities are far over capacity, in a system that the Vera Institute of Justice describes as “plagued by abuse and neglect.”

No matter who is president, conditions in immigrant detention are generally abysmal. Migrant detention centers have been cited for their lack of medical care, poor treatment of detainees, and physical and sexual violence. In 2019, the federal government itself reported that conditions in detention were inhumane. At least 11 people have died in detention since January. This reality cries out for more transparency and accountability — especially because Homeland Security laid off most of its internal watchdogs earlier this year.

The ranks of detainees include asylum-seekers, teenagers, DACA recipients, pregnant women, journalists and even U.S. citizens. Most of the detainees arrested lately have no criminal convictions. These folks are often arrested and moved thousands of miles away from home, complicating their access to legal representation and family visits. A visit by a congressional delegation may be the only way to ensure that they are being treated properly.

In response to the lawsuit by House Democrats, Tricia McLaughlin, a spokesperson for Homeland Security, said: “These members of Congress could have just scheduled a tour. Instead, they’re running to court to drive clicks and fundraising emails.” She added that ICE was imposing the new limits, in part, because of “obstructions to enforcement, including by politicians themselves.”

McLaughlin might have been referring to a May scuffle outside a Newark, N.J., detention center that led to charges being filed against Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.) and the arrest of the city’s mayor. But this incident would not have occurred if immigration officials had followed the law and allowed lawmakers inside to survey the facility’s conditions.

Indeed, the acting director of ICE, Todd Lyons, told a congressional hearing in May that he recognized the right of members to visit detention facilities, even with no notice. And the notion that any government agency can unilaterally regulate Congress runs afoul of the Constitution. The legislative branch has the right and obligation to supervise the executive branch. Simply put, ICE cannot tell members of Congress what they can or cannot do.

The need for oversight in detention facilities will only become greater in the future, as Congress just approved $45 billion for the expansion of immigrant detention centers. This could result in the daily detention of at least 116,000 people. Meanwhile, 55% of Americans, according to the Pew Center, disapprove of building more facilities to hold immigrants.

ICE’s new policies violate federal law. No agency is above oversight — and members of Congress must be allowed full access to detention facilities.

Raul A. Reyes is an immigration attorney and contributor to NBC Latino and CNN Opinion. X: @RaulAReyes; Instagram: @raulareyes1

I’ll never forget the moment I met 93-year-old DeLoyce Alcorn. It was last fall and he was in the midst of his weekly workout at the Strength Shoppe in Echo Park. The retired aerospace engineer, then 92, was wearing a fitted T-shirt that read “Be Strong. Be Resilient. Be You” as he strapped himself into the leg press machine.

Alcorn extended his legs, closed his eyes and inhaled deeply. Then he began slowly, determinedly, pushing 312 pounds forward with his feet, completing multiple reps. (By contrast, I’m many decades younger and physically fit and currently push 220 pounds when leg-pressing.) Alcorn was inspiring, to say the least.

So is 71-year-old pole dancer, Mary Serritella, whom my colleague, Deborah Netburn, wrote about last year. Performing under the name Mary Caryl, Serritella contorts her body into positions called “The Chopstick,” “The Jade Split” and “The Black Sun Split,” whirling around a silver pole as disco music plays.

This past May, I wrote about a group of relatively older “vertical skateboarders,” Deathracer413, who believe that the dangerous sport is their key to longevity. They’re not nonagenarians — most are in their 50s and 60s — but they’re doing perilous airborne tricks, some well into senior citizenship. The adrenaline rush, they argue, keeps their brains sharp.

Of course, aging comes with inevitable physical decline and other challenges. But individuals such as Alcorn, Serritella and the Deathracers push against ageist stereotypes about how we should live — and play — as we grow older.

Are you at least 90 years old and still very physically active? If so, we’d love to hear from you.

Please fill out the form below. Be sure to include your first and last name, where you live in SoCal and your contact information. We may email you with follow-up questions and may include your response in a future story.

* By submitting your story to us, you are representing and warranting that the content is original and accurate in all respects and does not defame any person, invade any rights of publicity or of privacy, plagiarize from anyone, or infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate any proprietary rights of any third party, including intellectual property rights (e.g., copyrights, trademarks). You agree that the Los Angeles Times may edit your submission and may publish your submission on any of its platforms, including without limitation on latimes.com, in print, and on Los Angeles Times social media accounts, and may authorize third parties to publish your submission. You agree to abide by our terms of service.

President Trump’s demand for a whopping $1-billion payment from UCLA sent shock waves through the UC system. For those of us on the inside, the announcement elicited a range of responses. Some faculty and staff reacted with horror, others voiced increasing fear about the ongoing assault on academic freedom, and some merely muttered in sad resignation to the new reality.

I laughed. The president has decided to poke the bear — and the Bears and the Bruins, too. Whether Trump knows it or not, targeting the University of California is very different from going after private Ivy League institutions with deep historical ties to political power.

Pressuring UC to pay a large sum has another dimension entirely: It’s going after state tax dollars paid by the people of California. This should matter to folks on the left and the right, to those who venerate higher education and those who vote in favor of states’ rights against federal overreach.

Californians across the political spectrum should repurpose one of Trump’s own slogans: “Stop the steal.”

Unlike Columbia and Brown, which have paid off the Trump administration, UC is a public institution. That means, as new UC President James Milliken said, “we are stewards of taxpayer resources.” UC must answer to the people, not just to boards of trustees or senior administrators.

Indeed, as a professor at UC Santa Barbara, I consider myself to be employed by my fellow Californians. My job is to contribute to the fundamental mission laid out in the state’s “Master Plan”: to create new knowledge and educate the people of California. I take my responsibility even more seriously because I am also a product of UC; I earned my PhD at Berkeley and remain a proud Golden Bear. I am fully aware of what a positive effect a UC education can have on students and Californians everywhere.

A $1-billion payment to the federal government would have huge consequences — not only on the people’s university but also on the general welfare of our state, the world’s fourth-largest economy. UC is the second-largest employer in the state. We generate $82 billion in economic activity every year. More than 84% of our students come from California, and their degrees are proven to increase their lifetime earning potential. UC health centers treat millions of people every year, providing essential medical care. According to one striking study, “The economic output generated by UC-related spending is $4.4 billion larger than the economic output of the entire state of Wyoming and $16.1 billion larger than that of Vermont.”

We accomplish that in large part with the people’s money. For every dollar the state invests in us, we generate $21 of economic activity for the state. All of that activity generates $12 billion in tax revenue. We’re a great engine of growth.

You’d think a self-proclaimed genius and “self-made” business tycoon would know a good deal when he sees one.

To be sure, the supposed bases for demanding the extraordinary payment — antisemitism and civil rights abuses — are very serious. College students should expect to confront new ideas they may disagree with, but no one should be targeted for their beliefs. Full stop.

But there are more effective remedies for addressing any failures, as have already been pursued at UCLA. For Trump, though, the accusations are the pretext for punishing institutions that he doesn’t like and, as the Associated Press reports, rebuking political opponents such as Gov. Gavin Newsom. They are not reflective of a genuine concern for student rights.

Many of us have already sounded the alarm about the increasing financial challenges the UC system faces. Even last year, we had reached a critical breaking point — and that was before losing federal grant money.

But we haven’t given up and neither should the people. We all must fight back against this attempted seizure of taxpayer funds. It’s not enough to leave the task to political leaders; the people themselves must send the message.

Californians can continue to resist federal incursions by making it clear to the UC Board of Regents, elected representatives and everyone else that Californians will not tolerate a federal pressure campaign to take our state’s resources.

There are many reasons to be alarmed by Trump’s broader attack on higher education. But this time, Trump has crossed the public-private boundary and set his sights on state taxpayers’ money. Because we fund it, UC and everything it produces belongs to us. That means we all — no matter where we fall on the political spectrum — must stop the steal.

Giuliana Perrone, an associate professor of history at UC Santa Barbara, is the author of “Nothing More than Freedom: The Failure of Abolition in American Law.”

Los Angeles public schools are opening Thursday for the new academic year confronting an intense and historically unique moment: They will be operating in opposition to the federal government’s immigration raids and have set in motion aggressive moves to protect children and their immigrant parents.

School police and officers from several municipal forces will patrol near some 100 schools, setting up “safe zones” in heavily Latino neighborhoods, with a special concentration at high schools where older Latino students are walking to campus. Bus routes are being changed to better serve areas with immigrant families so children can get to school with less exposure to immigration agents.

Community volunteers will join district staff and contractors to serve as scouts — alerting campuses of nearby enforcement actions so schools can be locked down as warranted and parents and others in the school community can be quickly notified via email and text.

L.A. Mayor Karen Bass spoke about “how profound this moment is in U.S. history” during a Monday news conference with local officials.

“Here you have an entire array of elected officials, appointed officials, education leaders, people committed to our children, and we are gathered here today to talk about protecting our children from the federal government,” Bass said.

L.A. schools Supt. Alberto Carvalho said recently that the nation’s second-largest school system will oppose “any entity, at any level, that seeks to interfere with the educational process of our children. We are standing on the right side of the Constitution, and years from now, I guarantee you, we will have stood on the right side of history. We know that.”

High school boy mistakenly handcuffed

The worries among school officials and parents are not without cause.

On Monday federal agents reportedly drew their guns on a 15-year-old boy and handcuffed him outside Arleta High School. The confrontation ended with de-escalation. Family members persuaded federal agents that the boy — who is disabled — was not the person they were looking for, Carvalho said.

The situation was largely resolved by the time the school principal realized what was going on and rushed out to assist. School police also arrived and scooped up unspent bullets dropped on the ground by the agents, Carvalho said.

A spokesperson for U.S. Customs and Border Protection said Tuesday that Arleta High was not being targeted. Instead agents were conducting “a targeted operation” on a “criminal illegal alien,” they described as “a Salvadoran national and suspected MS-13 pledge with prior criminal convictions in the broader vicinity of Arleta.”

At a Tuesday White House briefing, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, responded to a question that referenced the L.A. Times reporting about the incident.

“I’ll have to look into the veracity of that report,” Leavitt said. “I read the L.A. Times almost every single day, and they are notorious for misleading the public… This administration wants to ensure that all school children across the country, in every city, from Los Angeles to D.C., can go to school safely.”

LAUSD will oppose “any entity, at any level, that seeks to interfere with the educational process of our children,” said Supt. Alberto Carvalho recently.

(Juliana Yamada / Los Angeles Times)

School communities in fear

The incident outside Arleta High is among the ongoing confrontations across the region that have provoked public protests and prompted the Trump administration in June to deploy troops to Los Angeles. Enforcement actions have included masked agents arresting people at parking lots, in parks, on sidewalks and next to bus stops.

Litigation, including a temporary restraining order, appears to have slowed down local immigration raids, but federal officials have strongly affirmed that they have not stopped.

Trump administration policy is that no location — including a school — is off limits for enforcement actions in his drive to deport at least 1 million immigrants a year.

“People in our country illegally can self-deport the easy way, or they can get deported the hard way. And that’s not pleasant,” Trump said in a video posted to a White House social account.

“A big part of it is to create the sense of fear so people will self-deport,” said Jimmy Gomez, a Trump critic and Democratic member of Congress representing Los Angeles.

The ripple effect is that school communities are experiencing fear and trauma, worried that agents will descend on or near campuses.

Most in the state’s public school systems, including in L.A. Unified have embraced a counter mission, protecting the right of children — regardless of immigration status — to a public education. That right to an education is, so far, protected by past U.S. Supreme Court rulings.

For most school officials up and down the state, a necessary corollary to that right is safeguarding students’ guardians and close relatives.

On Tuesday, 30 school board members from L.A. County — which has 80 school districts — convened in Hawthorne to emphasize their own focus on protecting immigrant families.

“We’re about to welcome students back to schools, but we’re very concerned that these fears and anxieties may potentially have an impact for students not wanting to come back,” said Lynwood Unified school board member Alma Castro, an organizer of the event.

She called her district a “safe haven.” Among other measures, her district has trained staff to “restrict the sharing of any student files, any student information, and there’s been some work with thinking about our facilities to ensure that we have campuses that are closed off, that people can’t just walk in.”

L.A. Unified, along with other school districts, has embraced a mission to protect the right of children — regardless of immigration status — to a public education.

(Juliana Yamada / Los Angeles Times)

Protecting immigrant families

L.A. Unified, with about 400,000 students, has been layering on protections for months, recently working to incorporate ideas advocated by the teachers union and immigrant-rights groups.

A major ongoing effort is building safe-passage networks one, two and three blocks out from a campus. Participants include paid outside groups, district employees and volunteer activists. School police — though diminished in numbers due to staffing cuts — are to patrol sensitive areas and are on call to move quickly to where situations arise. Some anti-police activists want the protective mission accomplished without any role for school police.

A safe-passage presence has expanded from 40 schools last year to at least 100 this year, among about 1,000 campuses total, Carvalho said.

“It is virtually impossible, considering the size of our community, to ensure that we have one caring, compassionate individual in every street corner in every street,” Carvalho said. “But we are deploying resources at a level never before seen in our district.”

Other various efforts include:

• Starting a task force to coordinate safe passage zones with local cities
• Setting up a donor-supported compassion fund to help families with legal and other costs
• Coordinating food aid for families in hiding
• Providing legal referrals
• Contacting more than 10,000 families to encourage them to send children to schools
• Providing information about online schooling options
• Distributing a “family preparedness” guide

Carvalho and leaders of other school districts reiterated that K-12 campuses and anything related to schooling, such as a school bus or a graduation ceremony, will be off limits to immigration agents unless they have a valid judicial warrant for a specific individual — which has been rare.

“We do not know what the enrollment will be like,” Carvalho said. “We know many parents may have already left our community. They may have self-deported… We hope that through our communication efforts, our awareness efforts, information and the direct counseling with students and parents, that we’ll be able to provide stable attendance for kids in our community.”

Reason to be afraid

Mary, a Los Angeles mother of three without legal status, was terrified, but more or less knew what to do when immigration agents came to her door twice in May for a “wellness check” on her children: She did not let them in to her home. She did not step outside.

And, eventually, the agents — at least eight of them who arrived with at least three vehicles — left.

Mary had learned about what to do in this situation from her Los Angeles public school.

Mary, who requested that her full name not be used, has three children, one of whom attends an Alliance College-Ready charter school, a network of 26 privately operated public schools.

Like L.A. Unified, Alliance has trained staff on the legal rights of immigrants and also trained parents about how to handle encounters with immigration agents and where to go for help.

Alliance largely serves low-income, Latino communities and the immigration raids affected attendance in the school last year. Normally, attendance runs about 90% at the end of their school year. This June, average daily attendance at 14 Alliance high schools had dipped below 80%. Six fell below 70% and one dropped as low as 57.5%.

Alliance also attempted to gather deportation data. Nine families responded in a school network that enrolls about 13,000. In two cases, students were deported; three other students had family members deported; one student and a sibling were in a family that self-deported; one student was detained; two families reported facing deportation proceedings.

While these numbers are small, the reports are more than enough to heighten fear within the community. And some families may have declined to be candid about their circumstances.

“What’s happening now is that no one is safe anywhere, not even in your home, at work, outside, taking a stroll,” L.A. school board member Rocio Rivas said in an interview.

Still, Rivas is encouraging families to send children to school, which she considers safer than other places.

Alliance is focusing heavily on mental-health support and also arranging carpools to and from school — in which the driver is a U.S. citizen, said Omar Reyes, a superintendent of instruction at the Alliance charter group.

Carvalho, a onetime undocumented immigrant himself, said that students deserve a traditional and joyous first day followed by a school year without trauma.

Children, he said, “inherently deserve dignity, humanity, love, empathy, compassion and great education.

Times staff writer Andrea Castillo contributed to this report.

Travis Kelce is done fighting for his right to party.

Or at least the 35-year-old Kansas City Chiefs tight end is ready to start toning down his party-hearty image — which is kind of big news for a dude who is known for his wild, celebratory, off-key renditions of the Beastie Boys classic “(You Gotta) Fight for Your Right (to Party!)” and is often seen out enjoying life with superstar girlfriend Taylor Swift.

Kelce made the revelation during a lengthy interview with GQ that was published Tuesday morning.

“I’m starting to phase out of wanting to be known as the party guy,” the three-time Super Bowl champion and 10-time Pro Bowl selection said.

“When you see me hanging out at the US Open with Taylor, it may look like the two of us are partying. But I’m just enjoying the fun of being at this really cool event that I always wanted to go to with the person that I love.”

Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce attend the men’s singles final match at the 2024 US Open last September.

(Sarah Stier / Getty Images)

He added: “I’ve become way more strategic in understanding what I am portraying to people.”

Following the Chiefs’ loss to the Philadelphia Eagles at Super Bowl LIX in February, Kelce didn’t immediately commit to returning for his 13th NFL season and the final year of his contract with the Chiefs. He acknowledged to GQ that he has been thinking about his life after the NFL, although he didn’t offer any details on what that might look like.

Kelce already has a high profile off the field, thanks in large part to his relationship with Swift but also from his appearances in countless TV commercials and on his successful “New Heights” podcast, which he co-hosts with older brother Jason. Incidentally, that podcast is sure to hit, uh, new heights in its number of listeners this week when Swift makes her first appearance on the show.

Part of Kelce’s new outlook on his image seems to have been influenced by Swift and the way she interacts with her immense fan base.

“People gravitate towards how she performs and how she makes it feel like the entire stadium is in a little room with her,” Kelce said. “She is so good at mesmerizing everybody and making everybody feel like it’s an intimate situation. I think that alone — there is so much calm and coolness. She’s beautiful. She’s up there making everyone feel at ease.

“Whenever I get in front of a crowd, I feel like I’ve got to be like, Woooo! Like, excited, bringing the energy. Then I saw that coolness and that calmness and that relatability that she is so good at presenting. I really grabbed that. Like, Man, I can use that side of entertainment as well. It’s not just always being the guy that brings the energy and creates these exciting moments.”

Kelce added that he and Swift share similar outlooks when it comes to their respective legacies.

“Nowadays I just want to be respected and loved by the people that I’m surrounded by in my work,” he said. “I want to leave it better than where it was when I started. And I see her having those same values.”

The NFL has reached a deal to take a 10% ownership stake in the Walt Disney Co.’s ESPN, the league and Disney announced Tuesday evening, a move that is expected to solidify the sports media outlet’s relationship with the league for years to come.

In return for the equity stake valued at more than $2 billion based on recent valuations of the company, ESPN will take over the NFL’s cable properties including the NFL Network and Red Zone, the popular channel that continuously updates fans on the slate of Sunday contests. The NFL Network also has the rights to seven regular season games.

In addition to the sale of NFL Network, the NFL and ESPN are also entering into a second non-binding agreement, under which the NFL will license to ESPN certain NFL content and other intellectual property to be used by NFL Network and other assets.

The deal is a big win for ESPN Chairman Jimmy Pitaro, who took over the Disney unit in 2018 with a mandate to improve the company’s relationship with the NFL.

The equity stake comes ahead of ESPN’s move into the direct-to-consumer streaming business this fall, which gives consumers the opportunity to purchase the company’s sports channels without a cable or satellite TV subscription. NFL Network will also be available on the streaming service.

“This is an exciting day for sports fans,” Pitaro said Tuesday in a statement. “By combining these NFL media assets with ESPN’s reach and innovation, we’re creating a premier destination for football fans. Together, ESPN and the NFL are redefining how fans engage with the game — anytime, anywhere. This deal helps fuel ESPN’s digital future, laying the foundation for an even more robust offering as we prepare to launch our new direct-to-consumer service.”

The new product is aimed at recapturing sports fans who are forgoing cable and satellite services. ESPN has seen its reach in cable decline from 98 million homes in 2013 to around 72 million as a result of cord-cutting.

“Today’s announcement paves the way for the world’s leading sports media brand and America’s most popular sport to deliver an even more compelling experience for NFL fans, in a way that only ESPN and Disney can,” Disney Chief Executive Bob Iger said in a statement.

ESPN has the broadcast rights to “Monday Night Football” and two Super Bowl games in the current NFL contract that runs through 2033 but is expected to be reopened in 2029.

The deal with Disney means the NFL’s other partners — Fox, NBC, CBS, YouTube and Amazon — will be bidding against an entity that the league has a financial interest in next time the media rights come up.

Lachlan Murdoch, executive chairman of Fox Corp., told Wall Street analysts Tuesday he is not concerned the NFL’s partnership with ESPN will impact his network’s standing with the league.

“We have a tremendous relationship with the NFL,” Murdoch said. “We appreciate that they are fans of the broadcast and cable networks, and we look forward to working with them and deepening our relationship with them as we move forward.”