supreme court

Feb. 23 (UPI) — A meeting on trade negotiations between the United States and India this week has been postponed in light of Friday’s Supreme Court ruling on President Donald Trump‘s tariffs.

Officials representing the United States and India were scheduled to meet for three days in Washington, D.C., to discuss their interim trade deal but the meeting has been delayed, CNBC, the BBC and Hindustan Times reported.

India’s top trade negotiator, Darpan Jain, was slated to travel to the United States for the meeting.

India is under a 25% reciprocal tariff imposed by the United States. It was expected to be reduced to 18% as part of an interim agreement between the countries earlier this month. The sides have continued to discuss future trade plans virtually since reaching the interim deal.

The United States and India were slated to finalize the interim agreement in March with it likely to go into effect in April. The framework for the agreement noted that any changes to the deal would allow the other country to “modify its commitments.”

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Trump improperly applied the Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose a swath of tariffs. With those tariffs ruled unlawful, Trump announced a 15% global tariff, citing Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows a president to impose temporary tariffs.

The act allows for the president to impose tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days.

The Trump administration continues to consider new plans to continue with its tariff policy, exploring other legal routes, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a social media post.

“We will immediately shift to other proven authorities — Actions 232, 301, and 122 — to keep our tariff strategy strong,” Bessent wrote.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide on shielding energy producers from dozens of lawsuits seeking to hold them liable for costs of global climate change.

In the past decade, dozens of cities, counties and states, including California, have joined state-based lawsuits that seek billions of dollars in damages, and they have won preliminary victories in state courts.

But the Trump administration and the energy producers urged the Supreme Court to throw out all of these suits on the grounds they conflict with federal law.

“Boulder Colorado cannot make energy policy for the entire country,” lawyers for Suncor Energy and Exxon Mobil said in their appeal. They urged the court to rule that “state law cannot impose the costs of global climate change on a subset of the world’s energy producers chosen by a single municipality.”

The justices will hear the case of Suncor Energy vs. Boulder County, but arguments will not be held until October.

The Biden administration had said the justices should stand aside while the lawsuits move forward in state courts, but the Trump administration filed a brief in September urging the court to intervene now.

They said the case has “vast nationwide significance,” and it should not be left to be decided state by state.

Lawyers for Boulder had urged the court against taking up the issue at an early stage of the litigation. “This is not the right time or the right case for deciding” whether municipalities can sue over the damage they have suffered.

But after weighing the issue for weeks, the court announced it will be hear the claims of the oil and gas industries.

SACRAMENTO — Every farmer knows there comes a time to thin the crop to allow the most promising plants to grow bigger and reach their potential.

The same is true in politics. And it‘s now time to cull some Democrats from the dense field of candidates for governor.

Put another way, it’s time for some lagging Democrats to step aside and provide more running room for swifter teammates in the race to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Sure, they’ve all got a constitutional right to run. But too many Democrats on the June 2 primary ballot could flip the California governor’s office to a Republican.

You’d think that Democratic candidates now plodding behind in the race — with little realistic hope of catching up — would want to avoid having that on their conscience. Party leaders, too.

Until recently, this nightmarish scenario for Democrats seemed inconceivable. After all, California hasn’t elected a Republican to statewide office for 20 years. Roughly 45% of registered voters are Democrats. Only 25% are Republicans. About 23% are independents who lean left.

But do the math. There are nine Democrats running for governor with various degrees of seriousness. There are only two major Republican contenders, plus a third lagging practically out of sight.

Remember, California has a “top two” open primary. The top two vote-getters, regardless of their party, advance to the November election. And only the top two. Write-in candidates aren’t allowed.

It’s a matter of arithmetic.

In the primary, about 60% of voters will choose a Democrat, political data expert Paul Mitchell figures. That number of voters split among nine Democratic candidates could result in all sharing smaller pieces of the pie than what the top two Republicans receive. Mitchell estimates nearly 40% of voters will side with a Republican, with just two candidates splitting most of the smaller GOP pie.

Recent polls have shown three candidates — two Republicans and one Democrat — bunched closely near the top. They’re Republican former Fox News commentator Steve Hilton, Democratic U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell from the San Francisco Bay Area, and Republican Sheriff Chad Bianco of Riverside County.

Another Democrat, former Rep. Katie Porter of Orange County, has been running close to the top three, followed by Democrat Tom Steyer, a billionaire former hedge fund investor.

It’s not likely that two Republicans will survive the primary and block a Democrat from reaching the general election. But it’s a legitimate possibility — and not worth the risk for the Democratic Party.

“How unlikely does it have to be for Democrats not to be worried?” asks Mitchell, who works primarily for Democrats. “Even if the chances are very small, the consequences could be catastrophic.”

He is constantly running primary election simulations. And last week he calculated the chances of two Republicans gaining the top slots at 18%. Most of his calculations have come out at around 10% to 12%, he says.

“I’m not trying to yell fire in a crowded theater,” Mitchell says. “But I’m trying to install a thermostat.”

He adds: “If there was ever a perfect storm when this could happen, we’re experiencing it now.”

The absence of a gubernatorial candidate heading the Democratic ticket in November, Mitchell says, would result in party damage far beyond the governor’s office.

It would lower Democratic voter turnout and probably cost the party congressional and legislative seats, and also affect ballot measures, Mitchell says.

In fact, it could jeopardize the Democrats’ chances of ousting Republicans and capturing control of the U.S. House.

So which candidates should drop out, not only to avoid embarrassment on election night but to save the party from possible disaster?

Four clearly should stay.

Swalwell has some momentum and is the leading Democrat in most polls, although his numbers are only in the teens. He’s relatively young at 45 and many voters are looking for generational change.

Porter is the leading female — with a chance to become the first woman elected California governor — and has been holding up in the polls despite showing a bad temper in a damaging TV interview last year.

Steyer has loads of his own money to spend on TV ads. But he needs a more coherent, simple message in the spots.

San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan just entered the race, but shows some promise. He’s a moderate with strong Silicon Valley tech support. And he also has youth at 43.

Five others should consider bowing out.

Xavier Becerra has a great resume: Former U.S. health secretary, former California attorney general and longtime congressman. But he hasn’t shown much fire. And his message is muted.

Antonio Villaraigosa also has an impressive resume: Former Los Angeles mayor and state Assembly speaker. He’s running with a strong centrist message. But at 73, voters seem to feel his time is past.

Former state Controller Betty Yee knows every inch of state government, but lacks voter appeal.

State Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond hasn’t shined in his current job and has no traction in the governor’s race.

Former legislator Ian Calderon isn’t even a blip.

What causes some candidates to stay in a race against long, even impossible odds?

“Hope springs eternal,” says longtime Democratic strategist Darry Sragow. “History is replete with races that turned around on a dime.”

And many feel obligated to their donors and endorsers, he adds.

Also, consultants often “have a vested interest” financially in keeping their clients in the game, he acknowledges.

But currently, Sragow adds, “it’s time for the Democratic Party to get its act together and weed out the field.”

“Party leaders should start cracking the whip. There’s something to be said for decisions being made behind closed doors in a ‘smoke filled room.’ The difference today is that it’s in a smoke-free room.”

The filing deadline for officially becoming a candidate is March 6. After that, a name cannot be removed from the ballot. It’s stuck there — possibly drawing just enough votes to rob another Democrat of the chance to be elected governor in November.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Bernie Sanders kicks off billionaires tax campaign with choice words for the ‘oligarchs’
What the … : Bondi claims win in ICE mask ban fight — but court ruled on different California case
The L.A. Times Special: Billionaires Spielberg, Zuckerberg eyeing East Coast, stirring concerns about California’s wealth-tax proposal

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Feb. 20 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday that President Donald Trump does not have the unilateral authority to impose tariffs.

The 6-3 decision struck down some of the broad tariffs Trump has imposed across the world from the Executive Branch. Chief Justice John Roberts said the president “must identify clear congressional authorization” to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs.

The decision came down in a lawsuit with several small businesses and Democratic attorneys general sued the Trump administration over improperly imposing tariffs. The plaintiffs argued that Trump was using the tariffs to raise revenue, a responsibility that falls under the scope of U.S. Congress, not the president.

While the Justice Department claimed that Trump was using tariffs to regulate foreign goods, Trump often said the tariffs were bringing in substantial revenue to the federal government.

Tariffs that Trump imposed using other laws will remain in place, such as tariffs on steel and aluminum.

Roberts added that the Trump administration has not provided any statutory support to its claim that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act applies to tariffs.

“We hold that the IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs,” Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito, all conservative justices, dissented.

Friday’s decision is the first in which a legal challenge to Trump’s second-term policies received a full hearing and resolution from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Feb. 18 (UPI) — A federal court gave a final ruling Wednesday negating the Department of Education’s 2025 directive that sought to prevent federally funded schools and universities from practicing diversity, equity and inclusion.

The U.S. District Court in New Hampshire issued the ruling that permanently invalidated the “Dear Colleague” letter of Feb. 14, 2025, after the Department of Education backed down from the lawsuit. The letter, signed by Craig Trainor, who was then the acting assistant secretary for Civil Rights at the Department of Education, told schools they had 14 days to comply with the directive or face consequences, including loss of funding. Trainor cited the Supreme Court‘s 2023 ruling on Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard, which effectively ended affirmative action.

Soon after, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of New Hampshire, the ACLU of Massachusetts and lawyers for the National Education Association, filed suit to block enforcement of the letter. The Center for Black Educator Development and several New Hampshire School Districts later joined the case as plaintiffs.

In April, the court issued a preliminary injunction stopping the Department of Education from enforcing the new ruling.

District Court Judge Landya McCafferty ruled earlier in the case that the letter’s “isolated characterizations of unlawful DEI” conflicted with the term’s meaning, saying that DEI is fostering “a group culture of equitable and inclusive treatment.”

McCafferty said the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in proving that the letter was vague, viewpoint discriminatory and unlawfully imposed new legal obligations.

Plaintiffs said they were pleased with the decision.

“This ruling affirms what educators and communities have long known: celebrating the full existence of every person and sharing the truth about our history is essential,” Sharif El-Mekki, CEO at The Center for Black Educator Development, said in a statement. “Today’s decision protects educators’ livelihoods and their responsibility to teach honestly.”

“While [President Donald] Trump and [Secretary of Education Linda] McMahon want to ban diversity, equity, and inclusion, educators know these values are at the core of our nation,” Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association, said in a statement. “The Trump administration’s unlawful Dear Colleague letter and certification requirement have now been vacated and abandoned, underscoring how badly Trump and McMahon overreached in their attempt to interfere with curriculum and instruction.”

Feb. 17 (UPI) — Officials for Germany-based Bayer have agreed to pay $7.25 billion to settle a class action filed by those who say its Roundup weedkiller caused them or their loved ones to develop cancer.

The proposed settlement would create a fund to pay for existing and future claims filed by those who say the weed killer caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma, which is blood cancer that forms in the body’s lymphatic system – most often in the lymph nodes — and spreads to other organs.

Bayer filed the proposed settlement in the city of St. Louis Circuit Court on Tuesday that also would include a separate Durnell case that is before the Supreme Court.

“The proposed class settlement agreement, together with the Supreme Court case, provides an essential path out of the litigation uncertainty and enables us to devote our full attention to furthering the innovations that lie at the core of our mission: Health for all, Hunger for none,” said Bayer Chief Executive Officer Bill Anderson.

“This litigation and the resulting cost underscore the need for guidance from the Supreme Court on clear regulation in American agriculture.”

“The class settlement and Supreme Court case are both necessary to help bring the strongest, most certain and most timely containment to this litigation.”

Bayer subsidiary Monsanto produces the popularly used Roundup weedkiller and will make annual payments into the settlement fund over the next 21 years.

Monsanto officials do not admit to any wrongdoing and said they agreed to the settlement to end the tens of thousands of lawsuits filed against it and stop more from being filed.

The settlement applies to those who say they were exposed to Roundup before Tuesday and who have a medical diagnosis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma or are diagnosed with it within 16 years of the proposed settlement gaining final approval.

SACRAMENTO — Tom Steyer must solve this dilemma: How does he convince financially struggling Californians they can trust a billionaire to be their governor?

Because, after all, the former hedge fund titan doesn’t exactly share their daily ordeal of scraping up enough money to pay for rent, groceries and gas in the run-down car.

And he doesn’t have any record in public office to point to. He’s trying to start his elective career at the top.

So, what’s the solution? Well, you can be a global celebrity like super-rich actor Arnold Schwarzenegger when he was elected in 2003. Or a Gold Rush tycoon like Leland Stanford back in 1861. Other than those two, there’s a long list of well-heeled rookie failures.

They include Republican Meg Whitman, who blew $144 million of her fortune losing in 2010. And Al Checchi, who spent $40 million of his own money getting beaten in the 1994 Democratic primary.

“Look, they didn’t have anything to say,” Steyer told me while sipping tea at a popular hangout near the state Capitol, specifically mentioning Whitman and Checchi. “They’d never done anything. Not like I’ve done for 14 years.”

Steyer, 68, who lives in the San Francisco Bay Area, touts his record of funding and promoting progressive causes, including successful ballot campaigns that raised tobacco taxes, closed a major corporate tax loophole and beat back oil industry efforts to kill climate fighting laws.

“I could give you 10 things I’ve done about environmental sustainability and economic justice,” he said.

“Why trust me? Because I’ve gotten results. And I don’t owe anybody anything.”

The Democrat spent $12 million on TV ads last year pushing Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Proposition 50 that allowed the Legislature to gerrymander congressional districts aimed at gaining five more Democratic seats in California.

Being a billionaire allows Steyer to buy all the TV spots he wants. He already has popped for $27 million worth running for governor.

But astronomical wealth comes with a political price.

“California voters do not cotton to some rich guy who has never spent a day in office but looks in the mirror one morning and suddenly sees a governor of California,” says veteran Democratic strategist Garry South.

So, in his campaign TV commercials, Steyer wears casual backyard barbecue garb trying to look like Mr. Average, but with a populist agenda.

“I’m the billionaire who’s going to take on the billionaires,” he says.

That sounds counterintuitive, and I’m skeptical about how well it sells.

Steyer knows he sorely needs labor support to seem credible among the working class. That’s why he recently joined rallies for striking teachers in San Francisco and healthcare workers in San Diego.

He has scored endorsements from the California School Employees Assn. — a union representing school staff — and the California Nurses Assn.

Nurses are backing Steyer largely because he has embraced their No. 1 goal: a single-payer, state-run health insurance system.

They’ve attempted to push that in Sacramento for years and failed. And for good reason.

Single-payer would cost the state barrels of money it doesn’t have. Moreover, it would replace not only private insurance, but popular federal Medicare and the state’s Medi-Cal program for the poor. The federal government would need to agree. Fat chance.

I asked Steyer whether he really believes the state bureaucracy is capable of handling such an ambitious undertaking.

“We’re going to have to get back to having a government that works,” he replied, in what sounded like a knock on Newsom and his predecessors.

How could he make a single-payer system work? “God is in the details,” he answered, a phrase he frequently uses. Translation: “I don’t know.”

“We’re going to work through it. That’ll take at least three years… But we’re going to have to do it…. Healthcare costs have been escalating for a very long time. And they’re eating up the [state] budget.”

After Steyer left hedge fund investing, he became an ardent crusader for clean energy and fighting climate change. It was his core issue running for president in 2020, when he spent $340 million before giving up.

But these days, he barely mentions climate. The better politics du jour is advocating for “affordability” — especially affordable housing.

Steyer said he doesn’t have a “silver bullet” for lowering housing costs. He has “silver buckshot” — a scattergun of solutions for boosting housing supply, plus rent control.

He’d shorten the time for issuing construction permits, require rezoning to develop vacant land, tax unoccupied housing left off the market and build higher — more like in New York’s Manhattan, where he was raised.

“What we’re doing is sprawl,” he said. “And what sprawl leads to is an awful lot of commuting, a lot of driving.”

That’s been a problem for generations, I noted. Suburban ranch-style housing is the California way. “People can change,” he said. “I think people want to.”

I asked him about the slow-poke bullet train project that’s costing four times original estimates.

“Of course, I’m in favor of high speed rail,” he said. “But good grief. We’ve been working on this for an incredibly long time and spent an incredible amount of money. As far as I can tell, we haven’t built anything. If we’re going to do high-speed rail, we have to build it at a reasonable price. And we haven’t been able to do that.”

Might he abandon the project? “I want to look at it,” he said.

The odds are against him ever getting the opportunity.

But the odds aren’t exciting for any candidate in this ho-hum contest.

Steyer is running in the middle of the pack, based on polls. He has hired the strategists who managed Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani’s victorious campaign for New York mayor.

There’s no front-runner for governor. But Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) has some momentum. He recently was endorsed by Sen. Adam Schiff. And he’ll also soon be endorsed by influential former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, I’m told.

Voters will do their all-important endorsing in the June 2 primary.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: In 50-year fight to protect California’s coast, they’re the real McCoys, still at it in their 80s
CA vs. Trump: Trump, California and the multi-front war over the next election
The L.A. Times Special: Who pays for Newsom’s travel? Hint: It’s not always taxpayers

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Feb. 13 (UPI) — The Department of Justice sued Harvard University on Friday for failing to hand over documents for an investigation into whether its admissions process discriminates against white people.

The Justice Department said its investigation is to determine if the Ivy League school is complying with the 2023 Supreme Court decision to ban affirmative action in higher education admissions. The investigation was launched in April and was to determine if the school’s admissions process for its undergraduate, law and medical schools follows the decision.

Harvard has said it follows the Supreme Court ruling.

“Under President [Donald] Trump’s leadership, this Department of Justice is demanding better from our nation’s educational institutions,” The Hill reported Attorney General Pam Bondi said. “Harvard has failed to disclose the data we need to ensure that its admissions are free of discrimination — we will continue fighting to put merit over DEI [diversity, equity and inclusion] across America.”

The university responded that it is responding to the government according to the law.

“Harvard has been responding to the government’s inquiries in good faith and continues to be willing to engage with the government according to the process required by law,” a Harvard spokesperson said. “The University will continue to defend itself against these retaliatory actions which have been initiated simply because Harvard refused to surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights in response to unlawful government overreach.”

The Trump administration had been working with Harvard to arrange a deal after the administration was seeking $500 million and reforms from the school, to end the pressure campaign, which included a freeze on more than $2 billion in funding, a civil rights investigation and regulatory changes.

On Feb. 2, The New York Times published a story that said Trump had agreed to drop a demand for $200 million to finalize the deal. That night, Trump made a series of posts on Truth Social saying he wanted a criminal investigation of the university and increased the demand to $1 billion.

On Feb. 7, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced that the Pentagon would end its academic partnership with Harvard, calling it a “woke” institution that is not welcoming to the U.S. military.

Thousands of Uber, Bolt and Addison Lee drivers will log off on Valentine’s Day, urging customers to boycott ride-hailing apps as unions accuse firms and TfL of failing to address falling pay, safety risks and unfair working conditions.

Private hire drivers across the UK are urging customers to boycott major ride-hailing apps on Valentine’s Day as part of a protest over pay, working conditions and what they describe as regulatory failures.

Members of the Independent Workers of Great Britain (IWGB) Private Hire Drivers branch are asking consumers not to use Uber, Bolt or Addison Lee on Saturday 14 February, while drivers log off the platforms and join a motorcade in central London from 5pm to demand legislative reform.

Nader Awaad, chairman of the IWGB Private Hire Drivers branch, described drivers’ experiences as “systemic exploitation” caused by fare structures, rising operating costs and what he calls insufficient oversight from Transport for London (TfL).

Awaad, 59, from Walthamstow, began driving in 2019 after being made redundant from a senior management role. He told The Mirror: “The UK’s private hire industry is a wild west. With no protection from unfair dismissal, drivers see their livelihoods disappear in the blink of an eye.

“With no real safety measures, we are left unprotected from passenger violence, frequently resulting in serious injuries or, in the tragic case of our member Gabriel Bringye, death. And that’s before we even start talking about pay,” he said.

Gabriel Bringye, 37, was a much loved private hire driver from Tottemham, north London. In February 2021, he was fatally stabbed during a robbery by a group of teenagers who had booked his cab by chance. He died from blood loss despite attempting to defend himself.

The attack left a deep mark on the driving community, and following the trial, Bringye’s family established Gabriel’s Campaign for Driver Safety, calling for stronger protections for private hire drivers and measures to prevent future tragedies.

According to the IWGB, drivers can work 12 to 18-hour days just to break even, covering fuel, insurance, vehicle maintenance, traffic fines and platform commission. Awaad highlighted a case where a Heathrow-to-central London ride cost £111 for the passenger, but the driver was paid only £29. “After expenses, many drivers are earning less than the minimum wage,” he told us.

He also criticised “upfront” or “dynamic pricing,” which sets fares for passengers and pays drivers via algorithms. Research from Oxford University found that Uber driver pay has declined since the model’s introduction. Under this system, drivers have no say over fares and can bear the cost of delays or route changes.

The protest follows the Supreme Court ruling that Uber drivers are workers, entitled to minimum wage and holiday pay. Awaad argues operators responded by adjusting pay structures in ways that reduced earnings. Uber has said it complies with the ruling and provides worker protections, including holiday pay, pensions and minimum earnings guarantees.

Beyond pay, safety remains a concern. Drivers report risks of assault and abuse, along with sudden account deactivation by operators. Awaad insists TfL, as the licensing authority, should oversee any suspension decisions. The union also wants stricter passenger identity checks after incidents involving stolen or fraudulent accounts.

Awaad’s attempts to raise these concerns directly with TfL Commissioner Andy Lord, including offering detailed evidence, were reportedly declined.

When The Mirror reached out to TfL, a spokesperson said: “We take our responsibilities as the licensing authority seriously to ensure that everyone can travel safely and reliably. Operators must meet high standards in order to be licensed in London and we continually keep licensing requirements under review to ensure safe services for Londoners.”

The IWGB is lobbying Parliament for legislative changes addressing pay transparency, commission levels, safety protections, and due process in account suspensions.

Alex Marshall, IWGB president, urged public support: “If drivers and riders unite, we can push TfL and the government to implement protections similar to New York, France, Mexico and Barcelona. Drivers deserve fair pay, capped hours, holidays and safety measures. The time for change is now.”

Responding to concerns around pay and transparency, an Uber spokesperson said: “We regularly engage with drivers, especially through our industry-leading agreement with GMB Union, who are not taking part in this action. More and more people choose to earn with Uber because we offer flexibility over where and when they work, as well as offering the best benefits in the sector.

“Drivers have transparency over every trip they take – including the destination and their earnings – before they decide whether to accept it. All drivers receive a weekly summary of their earnings, which includes a clear breakdown of what Uber and the driver received from trips,” the statement concluded.

Similarly, a Bolt spokesperson said the company operates a different model outside London. “Through Bolt Flex, the first model of its kind in the UK, drivers outside London can set their own fares, negotiate directly with passengers, and operate on a transparent, flat commission with no hidden fees. Drivers are already earning up to 7% more per trip on average, while receiving 24% more orders per hour.”

In response to safety concerns, Bolt added: “The safety of drivers is our top priority. We have committed €100 million globally to strengthen safety across our platform, contributing to a 14% reduction in safety-related incidents year over year.

“Drivers are provided with passenger ratings and ride history before pickup, can share live trip details with trusted contacts, and have access to 24/7 in-app and phone support. Our Emergency Assist button connects directly to emergency services and alerts Bolt’s 24/7 safety team, and our trip monitoring technology flags unexpected or prolonged stops. We also offer one of the sector’s most affordable CCTV schemes for drivers.

“Drivers on the Bolt platform operate as independent partners, and access is conditional on compliance with our safety and community standards. Accounts are only ever deactivated following a full investigation, with a clear review process. We will continue working with drivers to raise standards across the sector.”

The Mirror contacted Addison Lee for comment.

BBC Morning Live viewers said instead of £700 they will get £420 payout – and be ‘bombarded with calls and texts’

A BBC expert has given a warning to anyone who bought a car between 6th April 2007 and 1st November 2024. Finance expert Iona Bain told BBC Morning Live viewers that they face losing out by £280 on average if they make the wrong decision.

Ms Bain told hosts Helen Skelton and Rav Wilding that the car finance compensation scheme final details will be released in March – but people could miss out by appointing a claims company.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is hoping to compensate motorists who were unfairly sold a car loan between 2007 and 2024 because they were not properly informed about the commission paid to brokers, including car dealers.

Under the current proposals, about 14 million car finance deals could be eligible for compensation, with people estimated to get an average of £700 per agreement.

Ms Bain said: “So, if you took out car finance with a vehicle that was bought between 6th April 2007 and 1st November 2024, and if the car finance deal you got was Personal Contract Purchase (PCP), then you could be eligible for a share of this compensation bill, which is £8 billion.

“Essentially, we’re talking about the commission that was paid behind the scenes by car finance lenders to brokers whenever they sold one of these deals. Customers weren’t always aware of the level and scale of this commission, and that meant, in many cases, customers ended up with car finance deals that were more expensive and less competitive than they should have been.

“And that’s certainly what the Supreme Court ultimately ruled, and it decided that compensation was due to all those customers that were potentially in that situation. So look, it’s taken a while to get to this point, but now the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)—which is Britain’s regulator in this area—it’s said it’s going to be publishing the system for how people can apply for compensation in the next month or so.”

She said that the system being created will be straightforward and most importantly free to use. She said: “You can make a claim yourself; you don’t have to rely on a third party like a claims company. It should be completely straightforward for you to do yourself.”

She warned about claims management companies bombarding people – and explained they are making unfair claims and then will take large fees. She said: “If you see these adverts online, they are very enticing. They make claims like, “We’ll handle your claim for you,” “No win, no fee,” or “You could get thousands. But this is the reality: if you use one of these claims companies—whilst it’s perfectly legal to do so—they can take 20% to 40% of your compensation.”

Someone getting a payout of £700 would end up paying £280 to the company. Ms Bain added: “It is a lot. It means you won’t keep all the money that you’re ultimately owed. The fees can be buried in the small print, and you may not be aware of them until you’ve signed on the dotted line.

“So, one example is: let’s say you’ve signed up for a claims company, but then you change your mind—and that’s your right to do so. Some of these claims companies are charging termination fees for the work that’s been done, and those termination fees can be spurious and disproportionate for the work that’s actually been done.”

She said one prominent advert claimed the average car finance compensation that’s being paid out is going to be over £1,800. Ms Bain added: “I’m just going to say it: that’s not true. It’s not true, and the reason for that is that the FCA has not confirmed what compensation people are going to be getting. So, it has said that the average amount that will be paid out will be £700. Some people will get more, some people will get less, but it’s impossible to say at this stage what individuals will be getting until we know more about that FCA process.

“And also, I’m hearing these reports of people seeing these adverts, then giving their contact details to these claims companies, and then being bombarded by texts and calls trying to persuade them to sign up. I personally think that’s unacceptable.”

Other things to watch out for are:

• Upfront fees
• Unexplained charges
• A company promising guaranteed payouts or huge sums of money.

Ms Bain explained: “These are all big red flags. Just a reminder: you don’t need to use one of these companies. You can do this yourself and you get to keep all the compensation.”

Morning Live has provided a template for this on their website here.

WASHINGTON, Feb. 10 (UPI) — Some seven months after a Supreme Court Case gave parents sweeping rights to remove their children from lessons that violate religious beliefs, Republicans expresses concern Tuesday about school districts ignoring the ruling, while Democrats voiced fears that the ruling condoned discrimination.

​”In a world where new and controversial types of content are finding their way into classrooms, it is essential that parents maintain control over their child’s education,” Rep. Kevin Kiley, R-Calif., said in a congressional hearing of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education, which he chairs.

​In Mahmoud vs. Taylor, the high court ruled in June that Maryland parents had a First Amendment right to opt out their children from public school lessons involving LGBTQ+ themed storybooks that conflict with their religion. Tuesday’s hearing provided a venue for House members to reflect on how the ruling has changed classrooms.

Democrats, for example, voiced worries about the dangerous precedent it sets for censorship and exclusion.

​”Inclusion is not indoctrination,” said the committee’s top Democrat, Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, D-Ore. “Differences exist in the world around us. and part of a good education includes teaching students about tolerance and understanding.”

Bonamici said Republicans are using parental rights as another means to undermine public education.

One witness, Yeshiva University Assistant Professor of Law Zalman Rothschild, said he fears the decision could have broad implications and could be disruptive for education.

​”I have no idea how in any sense this can be bounded,” Rothschild said.

“For example, say a teacher tries to teach the value of nondiscrimination against religion and specifies its wrong to discriminate against Jews or against Muslims, and some parents have a problem with that because of their sincerely held religious beliefs, because Chapter 16 of Mark says that those who are not baptized are condemned,” he said.

Rep. Adelita Grijalva, D-Ariz., urged her Republican colleagues not take the ruling as permission to turn public schools into the “latest front in a culture war.”​

Grijalva said Republicans were hypocritical to encourage federal involvement in education when they call themselves “the party that wants things to go back to the local level.”​

“I want us to continue to support our duly locally elected school districts to make decisions about school curriculum,” Grijalva said.

Rep. Summer Lee, D-Pa., held up a children’s picture book from the Montgomery Area School District curriculum, “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” while she questioned witnesses. The story follows a young girl as she learns that her favorite uncle is getting married to his male partner, Jamie.

Lee said providing holistic education to American children became harder after the ruling.

“It’s about exploiting religious exemptions to shield children from the reality of queer people existing,” he said.

​Conservative education groups, however, applauded the power shift in schools after the ruling.

“Two of the story books, not only “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding” but “Pride Puppy!” addressed non-binary individuals, drag queens and pride parades. These are individuals who don’t have a clear sense of their identity regarding whether they want to be a firefighter or a fairy when they grow up. What we’re dealing with is a designed attempt to change minds on perspectives,” said Sarah Perry, vice president of Defending Education, a national advocacy group that supports more parental involvement in schools.

​Throughout the hearing, Bonamici tried to steer the conversation to “hearing topics that actually matter,” including ICE allegedly inflicting trauma in schools and the effects of the dismantling of the Department of Education.

She pointed out that the committee had yet to hold a hearing on gun violence in schools and that just Monday, a 16-year-old was shot at a Montgomery County Public School.

​”No one is arguing that parents should not be involved in their children’s education. We all agree on that,” Bonamici said. “Banning books or preventing students from learning about differences only serves to perpetuate a culture of hatred and fear.”

Feb. 10 (UPI) — Officials for the Environmental Protection Agency said they are working to end a 2009 declaration that says climate change is a danger to public health.

During the weekend, EPA officials submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a proposed rule revoking the 2009 endangerment finding that guided U.S. climate and greenhouse gas regulations.

The EPA did not say when the endangerment finding officially would be revoked, but White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt suggested it would happen this week.

“This week at the White House, President [Donald] Trump will be taking the most significant deregulatory actions in history to further unleash American energy dominance and drive down costs,” Leavitt said in a prepared statement.

Revoking the endangerment finding removes the EPA’s statutory authority to regulate motor vehicle emissions that was provided via Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act of 1970, an EPA spokesperson told The Hill.

The endangerment finding is “one of the most damaging decisions in modern history,” the Leavitt said.

The Clean Air Act forces the EPA to regulate vehicle emissions that produce any pollutant that are reasonably thought to pose a danger to public health or welfare.

A 2007 Supreme Court ruling determined that greenhouse gas emissions that are thought to contribute to global warming meet the standard for air pollutants that require regulation due to their potential for harming public health.

The Obama administration in 2009 issued the endangerment finding for greenhouse gas emissions, which the prior Supreme Court ruling said requires the EPA to regulate them.

The EPA that year decided that greenhouse gas emissions likely would cause widespread “serious adverse health effects in large-population areas” due to increased ambient ozone over many areas of the United States.

“The impact on mortality and morbidity associated with increases in average temperatures, which increase the likelihood of heat waves, also provides support for a public health endangerment finding,” the EPA said in its endangerment finding.

“The evidence concerning how human-induced climate change may alter extreme weather events also clearly supports a finding of endangerment,” the EPA said, while acknowledging that the conclusion was based on “consensus.”

The finding said carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases are fueling storms, drought, heat waves, wildfires and rising seas, which pose a threat to public health.

Because the finding determined emissions from the burning of coal, gas and oil were said to contribute to climate change, the EPA undertook regulations of power plants, vehicles and other sources of greenhouse gas emissions, including gas stoves, ovens, water heaters and heating systems.

Revoking the endangerment finding ends those regulations, which could be reversed if a future administration reinstates the finding.

Feb. 10 (UPI) — Same-sex partners can legally co-own property in the Philippines, the nation’s Supreme Court announced Tuesday, a landmark decision for LGBTQ rights in the overwhelmingly Christian nation.

The ruling, which was dated Thursday but released Tuesday, states for the first time that same-sex partners can jointly own property under Article 148 of the Family Code, the country’s primary law governing marriage, family and property relations.

“Our laws should be read from more contemporary lenses. We must bear in mind how the lived realities of many couples in the Philippines are now far from heteronormative standards,” Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen said in a concurring opinion.

“To be different is not to be abnormal. A same-sex relationship is a normal relationship and therefore should be covered by Article 148 of the Family Code. Otherwise, we render legally invisible some forms of legitimate intimate relationships.”

The ruling comes in litigation over ownership of a Quezon City house once inhabited by same-sex couple Jennifer Josef and Evalyn Ursua.

They purchased the property in 2006, agreeing to register it under Ursua’s name for ease of bank transactions. According to court documents, when they separated, they agreed to sell the house and divide the proceeds equally.

However, Josef filed a complaint for partition of the property and damages after Ursua refused to sell it, recognize Josef as a co-owner or give her half of the property.

Same-sex unions are illegal in the conservative Christian nation where public support of such relations was only about 22%, according to a 2018 survey by the nonprofit social research institute Social Weather Stations.

Shared property is governed under two provisions of the Philippine Family Code: Article 147, which applies to legally married couples; and Article 148, which concerns couples who cannot legally marry, such as so-called adulterous heterosexual relationships, incestuous or otherwise prohibited relationships and bigamous or polygamous marriages.

This effectively left same-sex couples without a clear legal basis to assert shared property claims.

The case made its way to the Supreme Court after a lower court and then an appeals court ruled against Josef.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court reversed the previous orders, citing a 2007 document signed by Ursua that recognized Josef as co-owner of the property into which she paid 50% of the expenses for its acquisition and renovation.

With its ruling, the high court clarified the provisions of the Family Code to state that same-sex couples fall under Article 148 since marriage is only permitted between a man and a woman.

The justices also stated that without a law recognizing same-sex marriage, Congress and local governments must work to address issues affecting the rights of same-sex couples.

“This Court does not have the monopoly to assure the freedom and rights of homosexual couples,” the Second Division of the Supreme Court said.

“With the political, moral and cultural questions that surround the issue concerning the rights of same-sex couples, political departments, especially the Congress, must be involved to quest for solutions, which balance interests while maintaining fealty to fundamental freedoms. The process of legislation exposes the experiences of homosexuals who have been oppressed, ensuring that they are understood by those stand with the majority.”

SACRAMENTO — California may be headed toward killing the billionaire birds that lay the golden eggs needed to nourish this Golden State.

The English fable about the farmer and his wife who foolishly whack their golden goose comes to mind when I think about the proposed billionaire tax in California.

The couple possessed a bird that laid a golden egg every morning, but they slaughtered it for one fat meal.

The billionaire tax — or wealth tax — would generate a one-time bounty for the state government of up to $100 billion collected over five years, according to its promoters. But its many critics say it would drive billionaires out of California, costing the state lots more in tax revenue over the long run.

These birds are capable of flying off to anywhere, after all.

Here’s how the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office summarizes the proposal’s fiscal effects:

• “Temporary increase in state revenues … probably would add up to tens of billions of dollars spread over several years.”
• ”Likely ongoing decrease in state income tax revenues of hundreds of millions of dollars or more per year.”

The golden goose is replaced by a mud hen.

Whether billionaires fly the coop or are forcibly penned in by the measure, as its drafters intend — and whatever the policy’s merits — it just seems like bad PR for California.

We might as well run TV ads and erect billboards along the border proclaiming: “Welcome to California, the land of opportunity. Make a fortune so state politicians can grab a sizable chunk.”

We’ve already got by far the highest income tax rates in the nation, topping out at 13.3%. The top 1% of earners pay between 40% and 50% of the entire state income tax collected annually. The top 0.1% kick in about 20%.

California is infamous for its unfriendly business climate, with byzantine regulations and an agonizingly slow permitting system.

“It sends out the worst possible message to the people we need in the state, the people who produce jobs,” says Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable.

Democratic strategist Garry South says: “Bleating about ‘tax the billionaires’ is a good applause line at Democratic gatherings, but it appears oblivious to the fact they’re already being taxed …

“Our revenue base is disproportionately dependent on capital gains and other income sources unique to the well-off.”

This wealth tax is not being pushed by Sacramento Democrats.

Love from labor, spurned by Newsom

Gov. Gavin Newsom is adamantly opposed. “It is not something that will allow us to be competitive,” he says.

And the governor asserts: “You would have a windfall one time, and then over the years you would see a significant reduction in taxes because taxpayers will move.”

Most Democratic candidates for governor oppose the ballot initiative.

“Driving out the entrepreneurs and innovators who have enriched California is not the answer to the pressing societal question” of how to address the “growing concentration of wealth,” says the latest gubernatorial entry, San José Mayor Matt Mahan.

The initiative is being led by a labor organization: the Service Employees International Union–United Healthcare Workers West, which represents 120,000 healthcare workers. It intends to spend up to $14 million to collect nearly 875,000 voter signatures by June 24 to place the measure on the November statewide ballot.

It would impose a one-time 5% tax on the net worth of California’s 200-plus billionaires, based on their wealth as of Jan. 1 this year. The tax would be due in 2027, but it could be paid in installments over five years.

That’s assuming state bureaucrats can even figure out the billionaires’ worth. And the new tax law isn’t tied up in courts for many years, as it surely would be.

Band-Aid for Republican healthcare cuts

The measure’s purpose is to make up for the billions of dollars in federal cuts to California healthcare programs, especially Medi-Cal. Of the total tax take, 90% would go to healthcare and 10% to education.

“If we don’t do something about [the federal cuts], we’re going to see devastating consequences,” says Suzanne Jimenez, the union’s chief of staff.

Unless the billionaires are taxed extra, she says, money will need to be seized from other programs — such as education and public safety — to salvage healthcare.

It’s just the opposite, critics argue: If billionaires flee the state to avoid the wealth tax, all programs will suffer in the long run because the golden geese no longer will be producing billions in annual tax revenue.

Actually, a better, more reliable solution than the billionaire tax for Democrats is to flip the House of Representatives in November. Win enough seats to seize control from Republicans. Maybe take over the Senate, too. Then restore adequate federal healthcare funding.

Some political infighters suspect that the union is using the threat of a ballot initiative to negotiate more healthcare money from the state budget.

“I think this whole thing is a bluff,” says Mike Murphy, a veteran political consultant who has been helping the opposition. “If you don’t want to see this thing on the ballot, make me happy by putting more money in the budget.

“But they picked the wrong time to rob an empty bank.”

The state government is running on red ink, with deficit estimates ranging from $3 billion (Newsom’s figure) to $18 billion (the legislative analyst’s). Even deeper holes are projected for the future.

Jimenez denies the measure is being used as a negotiating hammer.

“No,” she says. “Our focus is to qualify this for the ballot.”

If it does, there will probably be flocks of golden geese voting by absentee ballot in other states.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: A political earthquake in mayor’s race makes election a referendum on L.A.’s future
Gavin’s exit, stage right: Tax billionaires, cut rents and other takeaways from California’s first gubernatorial debate
The L.A. Times Special: Real, fake or overblown? Sorting fact from fiction in fraud allegations surrounding Newsom, California

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Hello and happy Thursday. I’m Times columnist Anita Chabria, filling in for Washington bureau chief Michael Wilner. Today we are talking about circling the drain, and whether its possible to escape the flush after the swirl has started.

Yes, I’m talking about President Trump’s latest latest grab at the levers of power, and whether it will pull us all down. Trump floated the existentially disturbing idea recently that the federal government should “take over” elections.

“The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting,” Trump said Monday on a podcast, making no attempt to keep election integrity nonpartisan.

This came shortly after the federal government raided a Georgia election office, still doggedly pursuing the very fake conspiracy that the 2020 vote was rigged against Trump. Lurking in the background of photos of that abuse of power was Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, a longtime peddler of conspiracy theories including that Ukraine housed secret U.S. biolabs.

It’s not just possible but likely that Gabbard will find “evidence” of fraud in Georgia because she has been claiming election interference since at least 2016 and reality has seemingly never been an impediment to her beliefs.

So some sort of report or “proof” probably will appear in coming months that Trump was right all along and that Democrats have tricked us all by stealing votes across the country.

That will be the basis for Trump to demand Congress “secure” the midterm election, and we all know how good they are at standing up to him.

But before we go there, let’s do a quick refresher on how Democrats supposedly steal elections, because that’s at the heart of what comes next.

It’s the immigrants, stupid

Trump (drawing from preexisting conspiracy theories promoted by many folks he has now placed in powerful positions) blames undocumented immigrants for his loss in 2020.

Under a long-running conservative election fraud hoax, Democrats allegedly made some sort of secret deal to allow Black and brown immigrants to illegally enter the country, if they would then promise to illegally vote en masse for Democrats.

“If we don’t get them out, Republicans will never win another election,” Trump said on that same podcast. “These people were brought to our country to vote and they vote illegally, and it is amazing that the Republicans are not tougher on it.”

This narrative has been proven false literally dozens if not hundreds of times in courts across the country, and by the rational minds of those who understand how impossible it would be for a conspiracy of this magnitude and complexity to go undetected — much less actually work.

Long before Harmeet Dhillon, the San Francisco Bay Area lawyer now demanding voter data as head of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, used her official power to pursue this false conspiracy, she spent years upon years filing lawsuits and doing media appearances making the same claims.

And time and again, she and others were swatted down by courts (and common sense and evidence) because illegal immigrants working in collusion with Democrats to steal the vote is not a real thing.

But now election deniers are in power, and the gravitational pull away from truth is accelerating. Conspiracy is reality as we get closer to the ballot box.

ICE them out

And if immigrants indeed are stealing elections in between raping our women and eating cats and dogs, there is an answer: ICE.

Who better to secure ballot boxes than a masked, terrifyingly unaccountable armed federal force of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency that maybe answers only to Corey Lewandowski (the shadowy political operative always at Kristi Noem’s side) and Stephen Miller?

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that Kavanaugh stops — basically stopping folks for living while brown or Black — are legal, these agents have probable cause galore. Add to that a new, legally unfounded directive that they can detain folks at will, without a warrant, and you have the perfect force to suppress an election.

Imagine if on election day, ICE roams the street in Democratic-leaning, nonwhite neighborhoods, stopping and even detaining folks as they go to polls. Demanding papers, dragging away dissenters.

“Your damn right,” Trump hanger-oner Steve Bannon said recently, “We’re going to have ICE surround the polls come November. We’re not going to sit here and allow you to steal the country again. And you can whine and cry and throw your toys out of the pram all you want, but we will never again allow an election to be stolen.”

Would you go to the polls in that scenario? Would you allow your 18-year-old to go or your elderly parent? I’d think twice, even as crucial as this vote is.

And here’s a bit of outrage you can aim at Democrats: Congressional leadership considered including a ban on ICE at polling places as part of their proposed deal to keep government funded — but didn’t. Once again, for those in the back, Democrats could have tried to stop this, but chose not to.

But wait! That’s not all!

Why can’t we just mail in our ballots, you ask. Well, that would be because changes by Trump to the U.S. Postal Service, and how ballots may be counted, are going to make it harder to ensure that mail-in ballots are received and counted as they traditionally have been handled. So mailing your ballot may work out fine, or may not.

And there you have it, that’s how a free and fair democracy spins into the vortex of authoritarianism, where elections are held, ballots are counted, but reality is lost.

You are antigravity

But folks, we are not there yet. Today is not that day!

There are things you can do, aside from peacefully protesting. People can start to make sure that their identification is in order (as Orwellian as that sounds) and help others to do so as well.

It’s likely that in some places at least, voter identification laws will make it harder to cast a ballot, and people will need to start getting birth certificates, Social Security cards or other paperwork now in order to comply with those rules. Ask who in your community needs that kind of help and how you can provide it.

People are going to need ways to vote in person and support doing it. If you are an employer, would you consider giving folks time off to vote, since poll lines may be long? Would you sign up to help those without transportation get to polls? Would you help with voter registration drives to get people signed up to vote?

And you can be certain that election conspiracy believers will be observing the vote, as they always do. Can you train now to be a responsible and fair poll watcher, to ensure there is balance and fairness in these observations?

The one thing we can’t do is believe Trump is unstoppable, that the point of no return has already passed, and democracy is flowing out the sewer pipes into the sea. In fact, we have 271 days to reverse this.

It will take mass participation on multiple levels — but it can be done.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Supreme Court, with no dissents, rejects GOP challenge to California’s new election map
The deep dive: Fulton County in Georgia Challenges the F.B.I.’s Seizure of 2020 Ballots
The L.A. Times Special: California doctor sent abortion pills to Texas woman. Under a new law, her boyfriend is suing

Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

P.S. Jeff Bezos Wednesday gutted his newspaper, the Washington Post. Its motto is “Democracy dies in darkness,” but also, democracy dies in layoffs by billionaires who can afford to send their wives into space for fun, but don’t want to pay for journalism that criticizes a dear leader.

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that California this fall may use its new election map, which is expected to send five more Democrats to Congress.

With no dissents, the justices rejected emergency appeals from California Republicans and President Trump’s lawyers, who claimed the map was a racial gerrymander to benefit Latinos, not a partisan effort to bolster Democrats.

Trump’s lawyers supported the California Republicans and filed a Supreme Court brief asserting that “California’s recent redistricting is tainted by an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.”

They pointed to statements from Paul Mitchell, who led the effort to redraw the districts, that he hoped to “bolster” Latino representatives in the Central Valley.

In response, the state’s attorneys told the court the GOP claims defied the public’s understanding of the mid-decade redistricting and contradicted the facts regarding the racial and ethnic makeup of the districts.

Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed re-drawing the state’s 52 congressional districts to “fight back against Trump’s power grab in Texas.”

He said that if Texas was going to redraw its districts to benefit Republicans so as to keep control of the House of Representatives, California should do the same to benefit Democrats.

The voters approved the change in November.

While the new map has five more Democratic-leaning districts, the state’s attorneys said it did not increase the number with a Latino majority.

“Before Proposition 50, there were 16 Latino-majority districts. After Proposition 50, there is the same number. The average Latino share of the voting-age population also declined in those 16 districts,” they wrote.

It would be “strange for California to undertake a mid-decade restricting effort with the predominant purpose of benefiting Latino voters and then enact a new map that contains an identical number of Latino-majority districts,” they said.

Trump’s lawyers pointed to the 13th Congressional District in Merced County and said its lines were drawn to benefit Latinos.

The state’s attorneys said that too was incorrect. “The Latino voting-age population [in District 13] decreased after Proposition 50’s enactment,” they said.

Three judges in Los Angeles heard evidence from both sides and upheld the new map in a 2-1 decision.

“We find that the evidence of any racial motivation driving redistricting is exceptionally weak, while the evidence of partisan motivations is overwhelming,” said U.S. District Judges Josephine Staton and Wesley Hsu.

In the past, the Supreme Court has said the Constitution does not bar state lawmakers from drawing election districts for political or partisan reasons, but it does forbid doing so based on the race of the voters.

In December, the court ruled for Texas Republicans and overturned a 2-1 decision that had blocked the use of its new election map.
The court’s conservatives agreed with Texas lawmakers who said they acted out of partisan motives, not with the aim of denying representation to Latino and Black voters.

“The impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote in a concurring opinion.

California’s lawyers quoted Alito in supporting their map.

SACRAMENTO — We relearned something from the killings of two law-abiding citizens by federal immigration agents in Minneapolis: There’s a limit to how many government lies the public will tolerate.

When government officials arrogantly persist in blatantly lying, the public just might turn angrily against the prevaricators.

Or maybe they’re not lying technically. They simply might not care whether they’re telling the truth, or what it is. Their only intent is to spew a tale that fits a political agenda. Regardless, the citizenry can stomach only so much.

Another thing we relearned is that when a government keeps acting against the public’s wishes, the public tends to rise up and smack its leader, altering the leader’s direction.

That’s the sign of a functional democracy when enough people get riled up and elbow their way into leading the government themselves.

In the process, they’re very likely to prod various other governments — state and local — into acting on their behalf.

We’ve been seeing this play out in the aftermath of the Minneapolis killings.

But, in fact, the public rebellion has been building during a yearlong nightmare of unjustified, inhumane, un-American violence by federal immigration agents. Their targets have been people with brown skin suspected of living in the country illegally. Never mind that many not only are documented, they’re U.S. citizens.

Such has been the slipshod and authoritarian way President Trump’s promised mass deportation program has been carried out.

Polls have consistently shown that voters strongly support the president’s goals of protecting the border and also deporting the “worst of the worst” undocumented criminals. But people have increasingly objected to his roughhouse methods, including masked federal agents slapping around and pepper-spraying legal protesters.

It’s not clear whether the two Minnesota citizens victimized by quick-draw federal agents were protesting. You can’t believe the Trump administration.

And that’s the danger in habitually lying: People can become so cynical that most disregard whatever they’re told by their so-called leaders. And that cripples what’s necessary for an ongoing healthy democracy: a cooperative relationship based on trust between citizens and those they’ve chosen to govern.

Some things we do know about the slain Minnesota citizens.

Alex Pretti, 37, was an intensive care nurse in a VA hospital. He was shooting video with his cellphone of agents and protesters when he was pepper-sprayed and wrestled to the ground by several agents as his legally carried handgun was removed. Then he was shot in the back several times.

He was not a “domestic terrorist” and “assassin” who wanted to “massacre law enforcement,” as Trump sycophants immediately lied on TV before backing off, after most of America saw videos of the killing and the president got nervous.

Renee Good, 37, was a mother and poet who appeared merely to be trying to drive through protest chaos when an agent shot her three times through the windshield. She did not try to run down the agent, as the administration claimed.

Good was not “obviously a professional agitator” who “violently, willfully and viciously ran over the ICE officer,” as Trump wrote on social media.

Public outrage at the lying and the brutish immigration enforcement has pressured elected officials into action all around the country.

Sure, you can call it political grandstanding and, of course, much of it is. But good politics and sound democracy involve listening to the public and acting on its desires.

In Sacramento, the state Senate held an emotional two-hour debate over a bill aimed at permitting people to sue federal law enforcement when their constitutional rights are violated. Rights such as the ability to peacefully protest and to be protected against excessive force. Lawsuits already are allowed against state and local officers. But federal agents are practically untouchable.

Senate Bill 747 by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) passed on a 30-10 party-line vote — Democrats for and Republicans against. The measure moved to the Assembly.

The vote was yet another sorry sign of today’s unhealthy political polarization. Not one Republican could break out of the Trump web and vote to hold illegally operating federal agents accountable in civil courts. But neither could one Democrat detect enough fault in the bill to vote against it.

Some law enforcement groups oppose the legislation because they fear it would spur additional suing against local cops. Look for an amendment in the Assembly.

The heated Senate debate reflected Democratic lawmakers’ frustration with Trump — and many of their constituents’ fears.

“The level of anxiety and anger is higher than I’ve ever seen in my 13 years in the Legislature,” Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Santa Ana) told me.

“People are coming into our offices fearful for relatives or friends who are hiding out, afraid to go to doctors’ appointments and their kids are staying away from schools.”

During the debate, several senators mentioned two young protesters who were each permanently blinded in one eye by rubber bullets shot by Homeland Security officers in Santa Ana. Lawmakers also railed against “kidnappings” off the street of people simply because of their skin colors, accents and dress.

“California is not going to let these thugs get away with it,” Wiener vowed.

“There’s a lot of hyperbole on this floor,” Sen. Tony Strickland (R-Huntington Beach) asserted. He called for repeal of California’s “sanctuary” laws that greatly restrict cooperation by state and local officers with federal immigration agents.

Easing those laws is probably a good idea. But more important, we’ve got to restrain undisciplined federal agents from shooting unarmed people in the back.

Sen. Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield), who revealed that she has been packing a firearm for 30 years, said that Pretti should never have brought his gun to a protest even if it was legal — which it isn’t in California.

And she’s right. But he never brandished the weapon and shouldn’t have paid with his life.

Neither should Pretti have been immediately attacked as a bad guy by lying federal officials. They’re now paying a political price.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Planned Parenthood, reproductive healthcare could receive $90 million in new state funding
The TK: Healthcare experts warn “people will die” unless state steps up amid federal cuts
The L.A. Times Special: Meet the un-Gavin. Kentucky’s governor sees a different way to the White House

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Jan. 31 (UPI) — Minnesota and the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul lost their bid to have a federal court order the Department of Homeland Security to end its immigration enforcement effort in the state.

U.S. District Court of Minnesota Judge Katherine Menendez on Saturday denied a motion to enjoin the federal government from continuing its immigration law enforcement surge in the Twin Cities.

“Even if the likelihood of success on the merits and the balance of harms each weighed more clearly in favor of plaintiffs, the court would still likely be unable to grant the relief requested: An injunction suspending Operation Metro Surge,” Menendez wrote in her 30-page ruling.

She cited a recent federal appellate court ruling that affirmed the federal government has the right to enforce federal laws over the objections of others.

“The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently vacated a much more circumscribed injunction, which limited one aspect of the ongoing operation, namely the way immigration officers interacted with protesters and observers,” Menedez said.

“The injunction in that case was not only much narrower than the one proposed here, but it was based on more settled precedent than that which underlies the claims now before the court,” she explained.

“Nonetheless, the court of appeals determined that the injunction would cause irreparable harm to the government because it would hamper their efforts to enforce federal law,” Menendez continued.

“If that injunction went too far, then the one at issue here — halting the entire operation — certainly would,” she concluded.

Menendez said her ruling does not address the merits of the case filed by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison on behalf of the state and two cities, which are named as the lawsuit’s three plaintiffs.

Those claims remain to be argued and largely focus on Ellison’s claim that the federal government is undertaking an illegal operation that is intended to force state and local officials to cooperate with federal law enforcement.

Menendez said Ellison has not proven his claim, which largely relies on a 2013 ruling by the Supreme Court in a case brought by Shelby County, Ala., officials who challenged the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

The act placed additional restrictions on some states based on “their histories of racially discriminatory election administration,” Menendez said.

The Supreme Court ruled a “departure from the fundamental principle of equal sovereignty” requires the federal government to show that geographically driven laws are “sufficiently related to the problem that it targets” to be lawful, she wrote.

Ellison says that the ruling “teaches that the federal government cannot single out states for disparate treatment without strong and narrowly tailored justification,” according to Menendez.

But he does not show any other examples of a legal authority applying the “equal sovereignty ‘test'” and does not show how it would apply to a presidential administration’s decision on where to deploy federal law enforcement to “enforce duly enacted federal laws,” she said.

“There is no precedent for a court to micromanage such decisions,” and she can ‘readily imagine scenarios where the federal executive must legitimately vary its use of law enforcement resources from one state to the next,” Menendez explained.

Because there is no likelihood of success in claims based on equal sovereignty, she said Ellison did not show there is a likelihood that plaintiffs will succeed in their federal lawsuit, so the motion to preliminarily enjoin the federal government from continuing Operation Metro Surge is denied.

Former President Joe Biden appointed Menendez to the federal bench in 2021.

Jan. 30 (UPI) — The Supreme Court of Panama invalidated the contract of a Hong Kong subsidiary to operate ports on the Panama Canal, ruling it is unconstitutional.

In a Thursday ruling the high court said the terms of Panama Ports Company’s contract that allowed it to operate the ports of Balboa and Cristobal violated the country’s constitution. Panama Ports Company is a subsidiary of CK Hutchinson Holding, a company based in Hong Kong.

The court said the ruling was made after “extensive deliberation.”

Panama Ports Company has been operating two of Panama’s five ports since 1997. It was founded in Hong Kong and is not owned by the Chinese government.

The company argues that the court’s ruling lacks a legal basis and “jeopardises not only PPC and its contract but also the well-being and stability of thousands of Panamanian families who depend directly and indirectly on port activity.” It said that it has invested more than $1.8 billion in the ports’ infrastructure in the nearly 30 years it has operated there.

Panama’s President Jose Raul Mulino said ports will continue to operate without interruption following Thursday’s ruling. APM Terminals Panama will operate the Balboa and Cristobal ports in the interim.

President Donald Trump has long sought control over the Panama Canal and voiced his desire to block China from operating there. Last year he threatened to seize control of the canal.

After the ruling, shares in CK Hutchinson fell by 4.6%.

China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said Chinese companies will pursue legal action to maintain their rights to operate on the Panama Canal, calling the decision “contrary to the laws governing Panama’s approval of the relevant franchises.”

CK Hutchinson has pursued a sale of its interest in the Balboa and Cristobal ports to a group of U.S. investment firms, including BlackRock. The proposed deal is estimated to be worth more than $22 billion.

Thursday’s decision may impact those plans.

Jan. 29 (UPI) — An appeals court ruled that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem unlawfully ended immigration protections for Haiti and Venezuela.

The three judges of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Noem, who ended the Temporary Protected Status for Venezuelans on Jan. 29, 2025. She ended TPS protection for Haitians on June 28.

The opinion, written late Wednesday by Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw, said Noem’s “unlawful actions have had real and significant consequences for the hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans and Haitians in the United States who rely on TPS.”

She said the move has hurt immigrants who came here to work.

“The record is replete with examples of hard-working, contributing members of society — who are mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, and partners of U.S. citizens, pay taxes, and have no criminal records — who have been deported or detained after losing their TPS,” Wardlaw wrote.

“The Secretary’s actions have left hundreds of thousands of people in a constant state of fear that they will be deported, detained, separated from their families, and returned to a country in which they were subjected to violence or any other number of harms,” she said.

The concurring opinion by Judge Salvador Mendoza Jr. noted that Noem and President Donald Trump had made racist remarks about the people of Venezuela and Haiti, meaning that the decision to end TPS was “preordained” and not based on need.

“The record is replete with public statements by Secretary Noem and President Donald Trump that evince a hostility toward, and desire to rid the country of, TPS holders who are Venezuelan and Haitian,” Mendoza wrote. “And these were not generalized statements about immigration policy toward Venezuela and Haiti or national security concerns to which the Executive is owed deference. Instead, these statements were overtly founded on racist stereotyping based on country of origin.”

The concurring opinion cites Noem calling Venezuelans “dirtbags” and “criminals,” and Trump saying that immigrants are “poisoning the blood” of Americans.

The ruling, though, won’t change the TPS removal for Venezuelans. The Supreme Court ruled in another case in October to allow Noem to end the TPS while the court battles continue.

TPS began as part of the Immigration Act of 1990. It allows the Department of Homeland Security secretary to grant legal status to those fleeing fighting, environmental disaster or “extraordinary and temporary conditions” that prevent a safe return. TPS can last six, 12 or 18 months, and if conditions stay dangerous, they can be extended. It allows TPS holders to work, but there is no path to citizenship.

Haiti was given TPS in 2010 after a magnitude 7 earthquake that killed about 160,000 people. It left more than 1 million without homes.

WASHINGTON — It took Democrats nearly a year to respond with a unified message to President Trump’s signature policy initiative, harnessing national outrage over the administration’s immigration enforcement tactics in Minnesota this week to leverage government funding and demand change.

Yet divisions persist as the party barrels toward midterm elections and, a year from now, the start of primary season. And Gavin Newsom stands right in the middle of them.

Staking the middle ground

A calibrated position by the California governor has placed him to the right of the party’s progressive base that has opposed the very existence of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for years — well before Republican lawmakers passed legislation doubling the agency’s budget, increasing its presence and visibility in American life.

Newsom has rejected calls for ICE to be abolished since the 2024 campaign, when Democrats saw clear alarms in public polling that showed President Biden and his vice president, Kamala Harris, on the back foot against Trump on immigration. To the contrary, Newsom has highlighted California’s cooperation with the agency, and his efforts to protect that relationship from progressive local lawmakers.

While Trump’s federalization of the California National Guard last summer was prompted, in part, by protests in Los Angeles against ICE raids across the city, the governor’s reaction focused more on the president’s alleged abuses of power than on the ICE raids themselves. To the extent he did comment on them, Newsom characterized their deployment as unnecessary and gratuitous, a political tool used to intimidate the population.

After the killing of U.S. citizen Renee Good, 37, by ICE officers earlier this month, and days before the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti, also 37 and a U.S. citizen, by Border Patrol agents last weekend, Newsom told conservative podcaster Ben Shapiro that his position against abolishing the agency had not changed. And he disassociated himself from a social media post by his office that characterized ICE’s conduct in Minneapolis as “state-sponsored terrorism.”

“California has cooperated with more ICE transfers probably than any other state in the country, and I have vetoed multiple pieces of legislation that have come from my Legislature to stop the ability for the state of California to do that,” Newsom told Shapiro.

The immigration enforcement agency received a massive influx of cash for detention facilities and recruitment last year with the passage of Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Republicans now hope to build on that law with even greater appropriations this year, providing ICE with more funding than most foreign militaries, including the armies of Iran, Turkey, Canada and Mexico.

“I disagreed when I think a candidate for president by the name of Harris said that in the last campaign,” Newsom added, of calls to abolish the agency. “I remember being on [MS NOW’s Chris Hayes’ show] hours later saying, ‘I think that’s a mistake.’ So, absolutely.”

A progressive rallying cry

It’s a position in stark contrast with potential 2028 Democratic hopefuls that could pose a challenge to Newsom’s presidential ambitions.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Democratic lawmaker from New York said to be considering a bid, has referred to ICE as “a rogue agency that should not exist.” The agency “doesn’t deserve a dime” of federal dollars, she has said, “until they can prove they are honoring human rights.”

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont), also rumored to be considering a run for the nomination, has advocated explicitly for ICE to be replaced with a new entity, built from scratch, without the baggage of the Sept. 11–era agency.

“Frankly, we need to tear down the ICE agency and have a new federal agency to enforce immigration law under the Justice Department,” Khanna said this week.

After Pretti’s death, Newsom also called for a pause to any “new funding” for ICE. He did not call for a review of its existing, historic levels of funding.

“Suspend the LAWLESS mass deportation raids nationwide NOW — ICE is no longer just deporting dangerous criminals,” the governor wrote on X. “Send the border patrol back to the border. End the militarization of ICE.”

Showdown on Capitol Hill

Pretti’s death is already complicating efforts to avert another government shutdown in Washington, as Democrats — joined by some Republicans — view the episode as a tipping point in the debate over the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement policies.

Senate Democrats pledged this week to block funding for the Department of Homeland Security unless changes are made to ICE operations in Minnesota. And Democrats in the House are calling for Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s departure as a condition in shutdown negotiations with the White House. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) threatened to pursue her impeachment if Trump doesn’t fire her first.

Both demands track with Newsom’s latest position. The California governor was harshly critical of Senate Democrats when, during the shutdown late last year, a core bloc voted with Republicans to reopen the government without achieving any meaningful concessions in their weeks-long fight over healthcare tax breaks.

The latest Democratic uproar over ICE tactics threatens a similarly broad spending package that also includes funding for the rest of the government, including the departments of Defense, Education, Health, Labor and Transportation.

“Senate Democrats have made clear we are ready to quickly advance the five appropriations bills separately from the DHS funding bill before the Jan. 30 deadline,” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said this week.

“The responsibility to prevent a partial government shutdown,” he added, “is on [Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.)] and Senate Republicans.”

Times staff writer Ana Ceballos, in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Spencer Pratt knows you love to hate him. Now he wants to lead Los Angeles
The deep dive: Housing costs are crippling many Americans. Here’s how the two parties propose to fix that
The L.A. Times Special: How once-exiled filmmaker Brett Ratner staged a Hollywood comeback with ‘Melania’

A note to readers: I will be out on parental leave until April, but fear not, California Politics will be in capable hands. You’ll keep getting the latest each week from my distinguished colleagues.

I’ll see you all soon,
Michael Wilner

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.