supreme court

March 20 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday ruled in favor of allowing a so-called street preacher in Mississippi to challenge a law prohibiting where he can protest.

The high court said Gabriel Olivier can file a civil suit in response to a law in Brandon, Miss., that prevents public protests outside of designated areas. He said the law violates the 1st Amendment’s free speech protection.

Police in Brandon, Miss., arrested Olivier in 2021 as he and a group of protesters shouted slurs and insults at concertgoers as they entered an amphitheater. Some members of the group also held up graphic signs showing aborted fetuses.

He was convicted of violating the city’s laws banning protesters from coming within about 265 feet away of the amphitheater and from using loudspeakers that can be heard from more than 100 feet away, CNN reported.

Olivier pleaded no contest to the charges and was ordered to pay a fine and serve a year of unsupervised probation. Following his sentence, he sued the city, saying its law violated his free speech rights.

A 1994 Supreme Court ruling — Heck v. Humphrey — though says that a defendant convicted of a crime can’t then sue over the legality of their conviction. Otherwise, he and other defendants could be cleared of their convictions outside of the normal criminal appeals process, The Washington Post reported.

Olivier’s lawyers said his case should be allowed to proceed because success wouldn’t affect the result of his conviction, for which he wasn’t imprisoned. The Supreme Court agreed with a unanimous vote.

The ruling did not pass judgment on the constitutionality of the city of Brandon’s laws, only that Olivier is allowed to challenge them.

At 95, labor icon Dolores Huerta made a shocking and heartbreaking revelation Wednesday, in the wake of a New York Times investigation into sexual abuse allegations against her fellow icon, Cesar Chavez.

She was raped by Chavez, she said. Twice — both times resulting in pregnancies.

“I have never identified myself as a victim, but I now understand that I am a survivor — of violence, of sexual abuse, of domineering men who saw me, and other women, as property, or things to control,” Huerta wrote in a statement Wednesday. “I have kept this secret long enough. My silence ends here.”

Like so many women who have carried the burden of their own attacks behind an iron curtain of guilt and shame, Huerta now finds herself in the difficult, painful position of having not only to relive this trauma as it becomes public, but explain it to the rest of us.

Like the brave women of the Epstein files; like our First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom and the courageous women who spoke out against Harvey Weinstein; like Cassie Ventura; like E. Jean Carroll; like Christine Blasey Ford, Huerta joins the ranks of women forced to justify their response to abuse by powerful men.

Huerta shouldn’t have to engage in this rite of self-flagellation, of course, but she and Chavez are linked by their legacies as two of the greatest civil rights fighters in our history. Now, this hidden truth rewrites not just his story, not just hers — but the entire legend of a workers’ movement that grew from the grape fields of California into a defining story of Golden State fortitude and hope.

If Chavez was a predator, where do we even go from here? What do we believe in when even our heroes are ghosts, as Pink Floyd long ago warned?

“It’s just a very heavy day,” said Huerta’s spokesperson, Erik Olvera. “It is incredibly overwhelming for her.”

And for all of us, really.

Reports of abuse

The New York Times investigation detailed the molestation and abuse by Chavez of two women who were teens at the time the events took place. Huerta, the sharpest 95-year-old I’ve even seen, also told the reporters that Chavez had forced sex on her when she was in her 30s, once by manipulation and once by force.

“The first time I was manipulated and pressured into having sex with him, and I didn’t feel I could say no because he was someone that I admired, my boss and the leader of the movement I had already devoted years of my life to,” she wrote in her statement. “The second time I was forced, against my will, and in an environment where I felt trapped.”

Huerta had two daughters from these encounters and gave them to other families to be raised, though she is close to both of them, Olvera, the spokesman, said.

Olvera said that Huerta was unaware of the allegations of the two other women interviewed by the New York Times until the reporters contacted her several weeks ago.

“She literally thought she was the only one,” Olvera said. “The guilt is really heavy for her.”

As the news broke this week, shock — but not disbelief — rippled through the political and union worlds where Chavez remains revered (he died in 1993) and Huerta remains active. Despite her age, she speaks at multiple events each week and is a fixture at the state Capitol advocating for workers’ rights.

While Huerta has never spoken before about Chavez’s attacks on her, his infidelities and autocratic leadership style — and rumors of misconduct — have been documented for years. In her 2014 biography, journalist Miriam Pawel detailed some of these complaints as well as Chavez’s troubled relationship with his wife.

In a statement, the United Farm Workers union called the allegations “profoundly shocking.”

It canceled all events celebrating the upcoming Cesar Chavez Day — a state holiday — and is working on a survivor-centered response with outside experts to help ensure a fair and inclusive pathway for other people to tell their stories.

Sen. Alex Padilla, who has worked for years with Huerta but who was a child when Chavez was organizing, called for “zero tolerance for abuse, exploitation, and the silencing of victims, no matter who is involved.”

“Confronting painful truths and ensuring accountability is essential to honoring the very values the greater farmworker movement stands for — values rooted in dignity and justice for all,” Padilla said.

Changing times

If there is the slightest bit of solace to be found in this tragedy, it is in the response. So far, we have been spared the usual attacks on victims — though almost certainly they are happening outside the public eye.

Though Huerta may carry guilt, as all survivors so unfairly do, coming forward now has quickly and forcefully changed the narrative. I suspect there are few people who would dare call Huerta a liar, or challenge her motives. I suspect without her revelations, the other women coming forward would be treated differently.

I imagine that had she spoken out back then, as a young mother in the 1970s, a Latina woman in the male-dominated culture of the Central Valley, she would likely have found little relief.

What must it have been like for her all these years to know the man we idolized had this monstrous side?

But after 60 years of hard work, Huerta is now powerful in her own right. And after 60 years of silence, Huerta wanted to use that power to support the other women speaking out. Olvera said Huerta came to that decision reading the New York Times piece, and for the first time understanding that these other survivors were children when their abuse happened.

“When she learned that, that’s when she was like, I need to come out and tell my story,” he said. “She didn’t want them to stand alone.”

In the end, every survivor stands alone because what needs to heal is a soul shattered by the trivial evil of carnal greed, a pain so personal and unique even another survivor can’t fully understand it. It is daring and noble in the crucible of that personal destruction, which lasts years if not decades, to demand accountability. Not all of our heroes are ghosts.

“Your courage and your voices matter,” Siebel Newsom said. “They open the door for so many others to follow suit and tell their stories so that one day soon, we will break this horrific cycle of repetitive abuse by powerful men.”

These women have now made it clear: Chavez was a predator — a powerful man who used his authority to manipulate and force women and girls into sexual encounters.

In the end, all the good Chavez did, the strength and dignity he brought not just to farmworkers but to immigrants across the country, will forever be bound up with this ugly truth — though the movement is far more than one man.

Chavez earned this ending. Hopefully, for Huerta and the other survivors, speaking out is the beginning of healing.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Cesar Chavez, a Civil Rights Icon, Is Accused of Abusing Girls for Years
The deep dive: ‘Profoundly shocking’ allegations against Cesar Chavez spark soul-searching in movement
The L.A. Times Special: Democrats face the possibility of a historic upset in California governor’s race, poll finds

Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to rule on whether the Trump administration may end the temporary protection that had been extended in the past to migrants who live and work in the United States.

At issue are legal protections for about 6,000 Syrians and up to 350,000 Haitians.

The court’s announcement signals the justices want to resolve this issue in a written opinion rather through emergency appeals.

Twice last year, the court’s conservatives set aside decisions from judges in San Francisco who said President Trump’s Homeland Security secretary had overstepped her authority.

Those cases involved the temporary protection status extended to about 600,000 Venezuelans.

But those decisions did not set clear precedents, and in recent weeks, judges in New York and Washington, D.C., blocked the administration’s plan to end the special protections for Haitians and Syrians.

Frustrated by what he labeled “indefensible” decisions, Trump’s Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer advised the court to hear arguments and issue a written ruling on the issue.

The justices on Monday agreed to just that. Arguments will be heard in April, and a decision will be handed down by July.

Immigrant-rights advocates argued the repeal of the special protection would be cruel and unjust to migrants who have established lives and careers in this country.

In 1990, Congress authorized giving temporary shelter to non-citizens from countries experiencing armed conflict, natural disaster or “extraordinary and temporary conditions” that prevent them from returning there.

In 2012, the Homeland Security secretary extended this protection to Syrians in response to a “brutal crackdown” engineered by its then-President Bashar al-Assad.

Last year, citing Assad’s fall from power, Trump’s Secretary Kristi Noem proposed to cancel the temporary protection for Syrians. Lawyers for the Syrians questioned how this could be seen as an emergency requiring an immediate ruling.

They said about 6,100 Syrians who have lived here lawfully for years.

They are “highly sought-after doctors and medical professionals, reporters, students, teachers, business owners, caretakers, and others who have been repeatedly vetted and by definition have virtually no criminal history. The government apparently needs urgent authority to send them to a country in the middle of an active war,” the lawyers said.

In 2010, the Obama administration extended the protection to Haiti after an earthquake caused death and damage in Port-au-Prince, the capital.

Judges in New York and Washington blocked those repeals and said the high court had given “no explanation” for its decision upholding the repeal for Venezuelans.

Those judges said the Supreme Court’s earlier orders orders “involved a TPS designation of a different country, with different factual circumstances, and different grounds for resolution by the district court.”

Sauer pointed to a provision in the 1990 law that says judges have no authority to second-guess the government’s decision to end it.

“There is no judicial review of any determination of the [Secretary] with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign state under this subsection,” the law says.

In the three weeks since Trump’s attorney filed his emergency appeal, there have been two significant changes since then.

Trump fired Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. And his war launched against Iran threatens countries throughout the Mideast, including Syria.

In agreeing to hear the pair of cases, the justices did not disturb the lower court rulings that blocked the repeals for now.

SACRAMENTO — Murder is considered the worst crime out there, but for my money, it’s child rapists who are the worst of the worst — especially the serial ones who destroy one life after another.

That’s wholly subjective on my part, but I doubt I’m alone. Which is why I was far from surprised at the outrage that accompanied two recent, successful parole hearings for convicted serial child predators in Sacramento.

Gregory Lee Vogelsang, 57, and David Funston, 64, both attacked children and were granted parole through California’s elderly parole program — though both remain behind bars for now.

But the fury over the possibility of their freedom has put the state’s controversial elderly parole program under scrutiny — again — and led to a flurry of legislation to add new restrictions. Should sex offenders be excluded? Especially heinous murderers? Everyone under the age of 75?

It’s easy to answer “yes” to all of the above.

“Part of the problem we have is we shouldn’t be making policy decisions based on speculation and on scary rhetoric that’s disconnected from the facts,” Keith Wattley told me. He’s the founder and director of UnCommon Law, a nonprofit that provides legal services and parole advocacy.

“That’s how politicians make people afraid, but it shouldn’t be how we make law,” he said.

And he’s right, as grotesque as these headline-grabbing cases are. In 2024, there were 3,580 elderly parole hearings and 606 people were granted that relief. Most have remained law-abiding. In the 2019-20 year, the most recent recidivism statistics available from CDCR, 221 people were granted elderly parole. Within three years, only four had been convicted of new crimes, and only one of those was a felony for a crime against a person. That tracks with lots of data that shows men generally age out of violent crimes.

But Funston and Vogelsang are the worst of what we fear when we talk about parole, and their cases rightfully make us wonder what the heck the parole board is doing. Though Gov. Gavin Newsom sent both of these decisions back for review, it’s easy to imagine the attack ads should he run for president: Under Newsom’s watch, child rapists walked free.

“Elder parole has gone too far,” Thien Ho, the Sacramento district attorney whose office prosecuted both men, told me. “I support the opportunity of people to be rehabilitated. But I think that certain individuals, in my opinion, and in my experience, cannot be rehabilitated.”

Here’s where I’m going to make a lot of folks mad on both sides of this issue. I agree with Ho, but also, I agree with Wattley. I don’t think we can pass laws based on our grimmest view of humanity. Removing hope from the system turns our prisons into dungeons and does not ultimately serve public safety.

But then, neither does releasing child molesters into our communities.

Lost in all the wrath about these two cases is the difficult business of justice that led to the early release law in 2014, and any interest in the hard and nuanced conversation that we need to have around terrible crimes. It’s easy and popular to say no violent criminal should ever be released, but we can’t just lock up everyone with no possibility of ever getting out because the “R” in CDCR stands for “rehabilitation,” and also — we just can’t afford the forever scenario, morally or fiscally.

California tried the throw-away-the-key model in the 1980s and ‘90s and ended up with prisons so overcrowded that the federal courts stepped in. The original elderly parole effort came through a 2014 court decision on overcrowding that gave inmates 60 or older who had served at least 25 years a chance to go before the parole board. A chance — no guaranteed freedom, and usually it takes multiple hearings years apart before the board approves it.

Later, the Legislature expanded elderly parole to inmates 50 or older who had served 20 years, but excluded those sentenced under the “three strikes” law or those who had murdered peace officers.

The reality is California has a lot of old, aging and sick people behind bars — at great expense. As we grapple with the idea of universal healthcare, there’s one place in California where it already exists — our prisons and jails. We currently pay more than $41,000 in healthcare costs per inmate per year, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

I’m not going to tell you it’s the best healthcare, but it’s taxpayer-funded, and includes even long-term dementia care. And yes, we do have incarcerated dementia patients.

“This is about reducing our prison population and our liability to cover housing and healthcare for an aging prison population, and we have to balance that with the safety of the community and the rights of victims,” state Assemblymember Maggy Krell (D-Sacramento) told me. She’s sponsoring a bill that would create an additional layer of safety around sex crimes by referring these possible parolees to the civil system that evaluates sexually violent predators for confinement in mental facilities after their prison terms.

“Under some circumstances, it is worth considering paroling some of these defendants,” she said, with the kind of thoughtful rationality sure to offend many. “But the cases that you’re seeing right now are completely egregious, and those defendants should not be released.”

Vogelsang was convicted of almost 30 counts of kidnapping and sex crimes, against kids as young as 5. He’s served 27 years of a 355-year sentence.

David Allen Funston, a Sacramento County child predator convicted in 1999 of multiple counts of kidnapping and child molestation. Funston was granted parole suitability under California’s Elderly Parole Program after serving more than two decades in prison.

(Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office)

David Allen Funston was convicted in 1999 of 16 counts of kidnapping and child molestation for kids as young as toddlers. He was sentenced to three consecutive 25-to-life prison sentences. Newsom bounced his first successful parole bid back to the parole board for a review, and on Feb. 18, it affirmed its decision.

But Placer County prosecutors quickly charged him with an old crime that had never been filed due to the Sacramento case, and he remains incarcerated awaiting trial on those charges.

Vogelsang’s case particularly raised a red flag for me. He told the parole board he’s been working successfully for about five years to control his thoughts about children.

“I don’t want to become aroused, but I know it’s always going to be there,” he said during the hearing.

Newsom also sent Vogelsang’s case back for review, and he will go before the board again on March 18. Vogelsang’s testimony was concerning enough that if I had a vote in this, I’d probably ask him to come back again in a few years, but we’ll see what the board does.

I’ll admit my decision would be emotional, and these cases do make me wonder. But Wattley is right that condemning elderly parole based on the monstrous deeds of these child predators is shortsighted. There is likely little to no public safety benefit in raising the overall age for elderly parole, and certainly no fiscal benefit.

“When you’re paying for older, sicker people to be incarcerated, and they don’t pose a risk to public safety, what are we actually getting for that? We’re not getting anything that supports survivors. We’re not getting anything that prevents crime. We’re just spending taxpayer dollars on something that doesn’t correlate with the public safety risk,” Wattley pointed out.

As hard as it is to wrap our minds around, it’s best for public safety to allow even the worst of the worst their chance in front of the parole board. It may even make sense for some who have committed truly terrible crimes decades ago to be released, if there is strong evidence of change and a low risk to public safety. That’s the kind of fair and realistic justice that no one on either side of the issue wants to talk about.

I’m not convinced Vogelsang and Funston have met those bars. But that doesn’t mean we should throw out the bars.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: USC and ABC7 criticized for exclusion of all candidates of color in upcoming gubernatorial debate
Money, it’s a gas: Poison-pill effort to cancel proposed billionaire tax hits voters’ mailboxes
The L.A. Times Special: China-backed Big Pork wants to override 63% of California voters. Even conservatives are mad

Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

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

March 13 (UPI) — A State Department official was barred Friday from going to Brazil because of a proposed visit to jailed former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who is in prison for plotting a coup four years ago.

The official, Darren Beattie, was approved for a visa to attend a critical minerals summit next week, but his visa was pulled because the meeting with Bolsonaro was determined to be outside his diplomatic authorization, Brazil’s Supreme Court ruled Thursday, Bloomberg and The Guardian reported.

After the ruling, current Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva ordered his government to revoke Beattie’s visa entirely, at least partially because U.S. President Donald Trump denied Brazilian health minister Alexandre Padilha a visa and revoked visas held by his wife and daughter.

“That American guy who said he was coming here to visit Bolsonaro, he’s been barred from visiting and I have forbidden him from to Brazil so long as they don’t free up the visa of my health minister, which has been blocked,” Lula said Friday.

Bolsonaro is serving a 27-year prison sentence after he was convicted for plotting a coup after losing the 2022 election to Lula.

The charges were based on Bolsonaro’s supporters storming government buildings in January 2023 — a plan that had started in 2021, before the 2022 election — in an effort to prevent Lula from taking office.

Brazilian Foreign Minister Mauro Vieira said that although Beattie’s visa application included the minerals summit and meetings with other Brazilian officials, he only asked for the other meetings after asking for the Bolsonaro visit.

Trump and many within his administration, including Beattie, have been critical of the Brazilian Supreme Court and the country’s officials for jailing Bolsonaro on the coup charges.

“It should be noted that a visit by a foreign state official to a former president in an election year may constitute undue interference in the internal affairs of the Brazilian state, Vieira told the Supreme Court.

Lula and Flavio Bolsonaro, who is the son of the former president, are currently locked in a close race for Brazil’s presidency after a poll found them tied for the first time with 41% of participants, which would lead to a runoff election.

The Brazilian presidential election is scheduled for Oct. 4, and a runoff would be Oct. 25.

Spring has sprung on Leo Staples’ family farm in Oklahoma, and his Berkshire pigs couldn’t be happier about it.

Weighing in at about 550 pounds, Woody, his largest hog (named by a grandson after the “Toy Story” icon) plays “like a puppy” in his free-range paddock, Staples told me, gobbling up the rye, clovers and winter peas that have grown knee-high under the Southern sun.

Swine life on Staples’ sustainable family farm is a jarring contrast to the existence of a pig on one of America’s “intensive” corporate-owned mega-farms, where some sows are confined to cages so small they literally can’t turn around or take more than a step or two in any direction.

“It’s not necessary and it hasn’t proven to be good science,” Staples, a self-described conservative Republican, said of Big Ag porcine lockups. “It’s also cruel.”

That confinement is at the heart of a congressional fight over animal welfare standards that Staples — and California — is likely to lose, though we shouldn’t.

At issue is the Save Our Bacon Act, a sneak attack backed by foreign corporations currently hidden deep inside the farm bill. It would severely curb the ability of states to enact limits on animal confinement and maybe accidentally open the door for ending all kinds of state-level food safety laws.

The SOB Act, an apt nickname, would not only cripple small family farmers such as Staples (though its supporters claim it helps family farmers), it would negate the will of California voters, potentially introduce risk into the food chain, and turn greater power of our food supply over to China.

It would also limit consumer choice at a time when more Americans — from fans of far-right Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to far-left granola grandmas — are demanding a say in how their food is produced.

Let’s break that down.

What is the SOB Act?

For the vegetarian hard-liners out there, it is true that Woody himself will someday likely be bacon.

But, increasingly over the past decades, meat-friendly consumers have moved toward wanting animals to “live a really great life and have one bad day,” as Nate Beaulac, another conservative Oklahoma pork farmer, describes it.

In 2018, to further that aim, about 63% of California voters passed Proposition 12, which increased the space that breeding sows were required to have, from something about the size of a small car trunk to the size of a coat closet. We’re not talking rolling acres here — just enough room to turn around. Some of these sows are basically caged for the majority of their breeding life — years — and are about the size of a black bear.

But here was the real bite in Proposition 12: No pork from any state could be sold in California if it didn’t come from a farm that met the new standard.

Overnight, the corporate breeders were locked out of the Golden State market. They sued bigly, and lost bigly in 2023 at the Supreme Court, which upheld California’s right to impose the state standard.

Big Pork tried to revive the issue with the Supreme Court in 2025 and was rebuffed. Surprise, surprise, the drums started pounding for the SOB Act shortly after (though various legislative attempts have floated since Proposition 12 was passed) backed by a Midwestern congresswoman from a Big Pork state.

The SOB Act would negate Proposition 12 (and a similar law in Massachusetts) and forbid states from making laws regarding animal confinement, according to an analysis by the Animal Law & Policy Program at Harvard Law.

That would emphatically overturn the will of the majority of California voters who want those standards.

But hey, Big Pork would make big bank.

“They want to limit American consumers’ ability to fight,” Beaulac told me. “They wanted to limit Americans’ ability to pursue any sort of change. And that is why me, not only as a farmer, but as an American and a capitalist, I’m strongly opposed to the Save Our Bacon Act, and in staunch support of Proposition 12.”

What Prop. 12 did

Beaulac was once a Californian himself, before heading to the Sooner State for college. He describes himself as a “Christian, capitalist, conservative environmentalist,” and a sustainable farmer who depends on consumers’ desire for healthy food to sell his pigs, chickens and cows.

Proposition 12, Beaulac said, “was a huge help to smaller farms, and the only people that it really hurt were the huge multinational conglomerates.”

“I mean very simply, we want the opportunity to compete,” he said.

Staples, Woody’s owner, who is also an expert in project management and environmental compliance from a previous career in the power industry, makes the case that the mega-farms can also come with mega-dangers.

“You have 100,000 pigs within two miles of each other, the chance of issues with a swine flu or natural disaster just increases,” he said. He points out that issues such as disease, groundwater contamination and waste disposal have already become problems for some large farms.

The flaws in the SOB Act don’t stop there.

The Harvard Law analysis points out that the loose language of the bill could have other consequences, maybe even gutting some state safety, labeling and cleanliness standards.

And some Republicans in Congress, including Californian Reps. David Valadao and Young Kim, oppose the measure and sent a letter to the Agriculture Committee late last year urging them to dump the act, pointing out that at least a quarter of Big Pork is owned by Chinese companies and does not represent American interests.

“Foreign-owned corporations — particularly those tied to adversarial nations — already hold a disturbing amount of control over U.S. agricultural assets,” the letter read, citing Chinese-owned Smithfield Foods, the largest pork producer in the United States.

The SOB Act “could further consolidate the influence of such foreign entities,” the letter‘s authors warned.

Armed with those arguments and others, Staples and Beaulac traveled to Washington recently to make their case against the SOB Act with lawmakers.

But, both men told me, they were met with a wall of lobbyists and money.

“It’s very eye-opening in terms of how many lobbyists are there every day,” Beaulac said. “The reality is Big Ag donates big money to the senators, and so when they need their bill to go through or they need a bill shut down, they’re going to have a lot more leeway than the small farmers.”

The lobbyists, Staples said, had the debate wrapped up tight long before the farmers even knocked the dirt off their boots and entered Congress.

“It was very obvious,” he said. “I was not prepared for what Big Ag had done, how they had prepared members of Congress to address the issues we wanted to address.”

Beaulac said he’s discouraged and fears the SOB Act will pass, but also isn’t giving up hope. He sees it as a bipartisan issue, and one he hopes for which people will stand up. This week, a social media post featuring a sad photo of a caged pig went viral, drawing attention across party lines.

“Blue, red. It doesn’t matter. People want healthy food,” Beaulac said. “They want to know how it’s raised. They genuinely care how they’re feeding their family, and it has nothing to do with who they vote for in November.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Thune Is in a Vise as Trump and Far Right Demand Fight on Voter Bill
The deep dive: The exodus of California’s tech billionaires from the Golden State to Florida’s Gold Coast
The L.A. Times Special: California could be attacked by drones because of Iran war, memo warns. Officials downplay threat
Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

P.S. Here’s a post by right-wing commentator Michael Cernovich on the SOB Act, just a taste of how much some of the MAGA folks don’t like this measure.

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

SACRAMENTO — One unique perk California kids enjoyed for generations was tuition-free college. Now, a candidate for governor promises to bring that back. And bravo for her.

The candidate, former congresswoman Katie Porter of Orange County, even suggests a way to pay for her bold pledge. That’s unusual for a politician. It’s normal to promise the moon without specifying how to get there.

She‘d raise the corporate income tax a notch.

OK, it’s very unlikely to ever happen.

The powerful business lobby would scream, even though California companies would benefit from a more educated workforce.

And California’s public universities would probably cry about their revenue streams having to rely on unpredictable corporate profits rather than the pocketbooks of students’ parents.

But at least there’s a potential governor who’s advocating tuition-free higher education and proclaiming it to be a priority.

Why is this Democrat, a UC Irvine law professor, pushing the issue? Tuition cost doesn’t show up anywhere on voter lists of important concerns. But California’s high cost of living is a gigantic gripe. And “affordability” these days is one of the most overused words in any politician’s vocabulary.

“When we talk about affordability, there’s lots of talk about the problem, but people want to hear what [candidates] would do about it,” Porter told me over coffee last week. One thing she’d do is eliminate much of the tuition at public universities.

Another reason for making college tuition-free again, she said, is that “it was a promise made to the people” by the California Master Plan for Higher Education.

But that was 66 years and nine governors ago. A lot has changed.

Actually, tuition-free public higher education was a California birthright long before Gov. Pat Brown’s master plan.

Policymakers regarded tuition-free college as a sound economic investment. It was in the state’s self-interest to produce highly educated innovators and skilled professionals to grow the economy. The middle class expanded, with people landing good-paying jobs that resulted in higher tax revenue for state coffers.

That didn’t mean college was free — and it wouldn’t be under Porter’s plan. There’s still housing, meals, books and annoying fees.

But Sacramento switched priorities in the 1970s, spending tax money on other things: enhanced welfare, healthcare and specifically K-12 schooling.

Free tuition existed before the creation of Medi-Cal healthcare, which now eats up 20% of the state general fund. It also was prior to Proposition 13 in 1978 that dramatically cut property tax revenue for K-12 schools. The state felt obliged to make up the difference.

Naysayers contend California can’t possibly afford to educate students today without their paying tuition. Nonsense. The state could happily afford it long before we expanded into the world’s fourth largest economy. It’s about priorities.

And today, free tuition could be the PR tonic California needs to brighten its faded image across America. It could attract middle-class families to California and keep those already here from fleeing.

Porter promised a return to yesteryear in a speech that was a far cry from old-time political rhetoric. Addressing more than 2,000 delegates at a recent Democratic state convention in San Francisco, she held up a whiteboard with two words in large letters: “F— Trump.”

And she led the delegates in shouting “F— Trump.”

That was a bit of a turnoff for this old traditionalist, who thinks politics has gotten too coarse and foul-mouthed.

I asked Porter what prompted the profanity and whether she had any regrets.

No, she answered. Candidates were allotted only four minutes to speak and “I was economical with my time.

“I wanted to be very clear in the first 15 seconds that I would fight Trump. I wanted the other three minutes and 45 seconds to be about all other stuff.

“Some people just want to talk about Trump because they don’t want to talk about our own problems.”

Plowing into her speech, she quickly promised to “deliver single-payer healthcare, less-expensive housing, free childcare for all, zero tuition at our UCs and CSUs, and [elimination of] income tax for those earning less than $100,000.

“Those are real affordability solutions.”

Right. But no specifics. How does a state wading in red ink afford all that?

I pressed her when we met later. She didn’t have time for details at the convention, she said. But this is her plan on tuition:

Free tuition only for California residents who are undergrads. And only in their third and fourth years at the University of California and California State University. If they desired free tuition in their first two years, they could attend community college.

Many community colleges already waive course fees for full-time, first-time students. Kids are better educated in their first two years at community college anyway, the UC professor said.

Many liberals complain that free tuition would waste tax money on rich kids who don’t need it.

“I’m a believer in universal programs” that don’t base eligibility on income, Porter said. “Something I learned in Congress. You know what never gets cut? Universal programs such as Social Security and Medicare.”

Anyway, she added, “Kids from really wealthy families go to Harvard or USC or other options.”

Public school tuitions are bargains in California compared to other states and private universities.

At UC, annual tuition is roughly $14,900 and at CSU it’s around $6,500. Without tuition, UC would lose roughly $5.9 billion and CSU $3.7 billion, state budget officials say.

But under Porter’s plan, the universities would lose much less. They’d still collect tuition from freshmen and sophomores and hefty levies from non-Californians. Also student aid could be cut back if kids weren’t saddled with tuition.

Hiking the corporation tax from 8.84% to 9.5% “would generate way more than I need for tuition-free,” Porter said. “I would use any extra money for free childcare.”

Political promises often aren’t worth a nickel. But tenacious and feisty Porter’s free tuition pledge might be worth at least a few bucks. And, maybe some votes.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Veteran Rep. Darrell Issa decides not to seek reelection in new Democratic-leaning district.
Internal combustion: Anxiety grows among California Democrats as gubernatorial candidates rebuff calls to drop out.
The L.A. Times Special: Yes, Republicans have a chance in California governor’s race. Here’s our expert analysis.

Until next week,
George Skelton

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

WASHINGTON, March 4 (UPI) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday considered whether the brokers who connect shippers with trucking companies can be held liable for irresponsible drivers.

The case, Montgomery vs. Caribe Transport II LLC, stems from a 2017 incident in which Shawn Montgomery, the petitioner, suffered significant injuries after a tractor-trailer hit his parked truck on the side of an Illinois highway.

A key part of the case is the interpretation of part of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994. It prevents state laws “related to a price, route or service” of trucking companies or brokers that connect them to shippers.

However, the statute also provides an exception, stating that it will “not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a state with respect to motor vehicles.”

The outcome could redefine liability standards for freight brokers and impact the broader transportation industry and interstate commerce landscape.

The driver of the tractor-trailer, Yosniel Varela-Mojena, had been involved in a crash months earlier, but was still employed by Caribe Transport II, an interstate trucking company. Freight broker C.H. Robinson recruited Caribe II to deliver a cross-country shipment. After the crash, Montgomery sued the broker for negligent hiring under Illinois state laws.

During the arguments, the two sides disagreed about whether the phrase “with respect to motor vehicles” includes brokers.

“We do believe that ‘with respect to motor vehicles’ is the crucial question here,” said Theodore Boutrous Jr., Caribe II’s counsel. He argued Congress did not intend for brokers to be included.

The attorney for the United States agreed that the two different sections of the law being discussed should, in context, be taken altogether to mean that brokers are not included in the realm of “motor vehicles.”

“Paragraph one uses the phrase ‘with respect to the transportation of property,’ [and] paragraph two [says] ‘with respect to motor vehicles,'” said Sopan Joshi, assistant to the U.S. solicitor general. “That seems like a conscious choice that Congress made to parallel the language, but change the noun to a much narrower noun.”

Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned Paul Clement, Montgomery’s counsel, on how brokers would address safety concerns if the court were to rule in favor of Montgomery and say that brokers are liable for consequences of negligent hiring.

For instance, Kavanaugh suggested drivers should be proficient in English to ensure safety. In April 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to enforce English-language requirements for commercial motor vehicle drivers.

“If you’re hiring drivers who can’t read the signs, that seems like a safety issue,” Kavanaugh said.

Clement said brokers could work with larger trucking companies with deeper pockets and check that they have adequate programs in place to test drivers for drug use, check on prior accidents and address other potential concerns.

“One of the reasons, I think, that you do want [brokers] to have some duty of care in these circumstances is this is a margin business,” Clement said. “If they don’t have any sort of incentive to internalize any of the cost of not asking the question, they really have no good reason to ask the question. They want the cheapest carrier.”

Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked Joshi to explain why he thought Congress did not think brokers should share responsibility for safety given the language in the 1994 law.

“The problem, I think, with the argument in the way that you’ve set it up is that you are assuming away any responsibility that a broker might have for safety,” Jackson said.

Joshi argued that Congress did not intend for brokers to have responsibility regarding safety and could have worded the law differently if it did.

“Congress has an entire chapter, several chapters, of the U.S. Code in Title 49 that deal with safety addressing carriers, safety of motor vehicles, driver qualifications, and they’re all addressed at carriers,” Joshi said. “Not a single one is addressed at brokers.”

Joshi acknowledged that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is “understaffed,” “overworked” and unable to review all of the federally registered carriers. However, he said Congress has provided ways of bringing consequences against carriers who violate federal requirements and regulations.

In his closing rebuttal, Clement told the court that 94% of registered carriers on the road do not have meaningful federal safety inspections — a number derived from 2021 Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration data.

He said state tort law could provide a “backstop to the federal system.”

“This case doesn’t have to be that hard. The thing that triggers state tort liability is an 80,000-pound motor vehicle. That’s what devastatingly injured my client,” Clement said.

The court is expected to issue a ruling by summer.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court revived a San Diego judge’s order Monday and said parents have a right to know about their child’s gender identity at school.

The decision came in a 6-3 order granting an emergency appeal from lawyers for Chicago-based Thomas More Society.

They said the student privacy policy enforced in California infringes parents’ rights and the free exercise of religion.

“The parents object that these policies prevent schools from telling them about their children’s efforts to engage in gender transitioning at school unless the children consent to parental notification,” the court said. “The parents also take issue with California’s requirement that schools use children’s preferred names and pronouns regardless of their parents’ wishes.”

The judge’s injunction “does not provide relief for all the parents of California public school students, but only for those parents who object to the challenged policies or seek religious exemptions,” the justices added.

The six conservatives were in the majority, while the three liberals dissented.

Religious liberty advocates hailed the decision.

“Parents’ fundamental right to raise their children according to their faith doesn’t stop at the schoolhouse door,” said Mark Rienzi, president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. “California tried cutting parents out of their children’s lives while forcing teachers to hide the school’s behavior from parents. We’re glad the Court stepped in to block this anti-family, anti-American policy.”

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had put on hold a late December ruling by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, who held that the student privacy rules enforced by California school officials were unconstitutional.

“Parents and guardians have a federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school student child expresses gender incongruence,” Benitez wrote. “Teachers and school staff have a federal constitutional right to accurately inform the parent or guardian of their student when the student expresses gender incongruence.”

Escondido public schoolteachers Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori Ann West, who described themselves as “devout Catholics,” sued in 2023, and they were later joined by parents in Pasadena and Clovis.

The Supreme Court’s ruling refers only to the parents.

The parents who brought the case “have sincere religious beliefs about sex and gender, and they feel a religious obligation to raise their children in accordance with those beliefs,” the court said.

The court added: “Gender dysphoria is a condition that has an important bearing on a child’s mental health, but when a child exhibits symptoms of gender dysphoria at school, California’s policies conceal that information from parents and facilitate a degree of gender transitioning during school hours.”

“This is a watershed moment for parental rights in America,” said Paul M. Jonna, special counsel at Thomas More Society. “The Supreme Court has told California and every state in the nation in no uncertain terms: you cannot secretly transition a child behind a parent’s back.”

The 9th Circuit had agreed with the state’s attorneys who said the judge had misstated California law.

“The state does not categorically forbid disclosure of information about students’ gender identities to parents without student consent,” they said in a 3-0 decision.

“For example, guidance from the California Attorney General expressly states that schools can ‘allow disclosure where a student does not consent where there is a compelling need to do so to protect the student’s wellbeing,’ and California Education Code allows disclosure to avert a clear danger to the well-being of a child.”

In their parents’ rights appeal to the Supreme Court, attorneys said school employees are secretly encouraging gender transitions.

“California is requiring public schools to hide children’s expressed transgender status at school from their own parents — including religious parents — and to actively facilitate those children’s social transitions over their parents’ express objection,” they told the court.

“Right now, California’s parental deception scheme is keeping families in the dark and causing irreparable harm. That’s why we’re asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene immediately,” Jonna wrote in his appeal. “Every day these gender secrecy policies stay in effect, children suffer and parents are left in the dark.”

California state attorneys had urged the court to put the case on hold while it is under appeal.

They said the judge’s order “appears to categorically bar schools across the State from ever respecting a student’s desire for privacy about their gender identity or expression — or respecting a student’s request to be addressed by a particular name or pronouns—over a parent’s objection.”

They said the order “would allow no exceptions, even for extreme cases where students or teachers reasonably fear that the student will suffer physical or mental abuse.”

SACRAMENTO — The race for California governor couldn’t be much closer. And that’s scary for Democrats.

Only the top two vote-getters in the June 2 primary — regardless of their party — will advance to the November election. And although still unlikely, it’s increasingly conceivable that both could be Republicans.

“Scare tactics,” claim naysaying Democrats of such speculation.

But Democrats should have heeded scary rumblings 10 years ago when long shot Donald Trump was first running for president — and not buried their heads in the sand again two years ago when Joe Biden was feebly seeking reelection.

They ignored the warning signs and paid the price.

Now, the latest independent poll of likely voters shows that Republican candidates are running in two of the top three places for governor — meaning it’s possible both could qualify for the November ballot, guaranteeing the first election of a GOP chief executive in 20 years.

The best odds are on one Democrat and one Republican finishing in the top two — virtually assuring a Democratic victory in November.

California is too solidly Democrat — and President Trump too despised here — to envision a Republican beating a Democrat to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom.

But Democrats could beat themselves if the current field of candidates remains intact. There essentially are eight Democrats and only two Republicans competing in the primary.

If the combined Democratic vote is splintered among the eight Democratic contestants, the two Republicans could end up finishing first and second.

“It’s hard to come up with the math that makes that work,” asserts Mark Baldassare, polling director for the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California. He just completed a survey in which “a lot of things show that a Democrat and Republican [top-two finish] is the likely outcome,” he says.

But political data guru Paul Mitchell has been running primary election simulations and after Baldassare’s latest poll, he calculated the chances of an all-Republican finish at 18%.

That seems like the danger zone.

The solution is for some Democratic candidates who have little hope of winning to drop out of the race — very soon, in fact. They shouldn’t even file their official candidacy papers that are due by Friday. After that deadline, it’s impossible to remove their names from the ballot even if they’re no longer really running.

The PPIC poll, released last week, showed a statistical tie between the top five contenders — three Democrats and two Republicans, all within 4 percentage points of each other.

The breakdown:

Republican former Fox News commentator Steve Hilton, 14%; Democratic former Rep. Katie Porter, 13%; Republican Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, 12%; Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell, 11%; Democratic hedge fund founder Tom Steyer, 10%.

Then came five Democratic stragglers.

Former U.S. Health Secretary Xavier Becerra, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and former state Controller Betty Yee each had 5%. Trailing them were San José Mayor Matt Mahan with 3% and state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond at 2%.

Mahan’s a centrist wild card who jumped into the race while the polling was underway. So, there’s a valid excuse for his poor showing.

Swalwell and Steyer entered late last year and apparently took votes away from Porter and Becerra.

Porter and Yee are the only prominent female candidates, but they aren’t particularly being helped by female voters, the poll showed.

There was good news in the survey for Democrats hoping to pick up more congressional seats in California and help the party seize control of the House of Representatives from Republicans.

Asked whether they’d vote for a Democrat or Republican for Congress, 62% replied Democrat and only 36% Republican. That’s not surprising, since Democrats already hold 43 of California’s 52 seats.

Newsom and the Democratic-controlled Legislature last year gerrymandered California’s House districts with the goal of gaining at least five more seats. Voters approved that move by passing Proposition 50.

The especially bright news in the poll for Democrats was that in the five new House districts considered the most competitive, Democrats had a slight edge in voter preference. That was also true in districts held by Republicans.

Additionally, Democrats are much more enthusiastic than Republicans about voting in the congressional contests.

In the competitive districts, nearly two-thirds of voters disapprove of tactics by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in corralling undocumented immigrants. And 57% disapprove of Trump.

Anti-Trump sentiment is extremely high among all voters — 30% approval and 70% disapproval.

One head-scratcher in the poll was the voters’ denial about their political polarization. They were asked what qualification they considered most important in choosing a governor. Only 6% said it was the candidate’s political party. Rubbage.

“There are very few people who are voting outside their party,” Baldassare notes.

Two-thirds of voters answered that a candidate’s stand on issues is the most important consideration for them. Voters of both parties, plus independents, rated a candidate’s position on “affordability” as “very” important — and it topped their list of concerns.

A majority of voters said California is “going in the wrong direction.” This is a gloomy finding for Democrats who have been ruling state government — and most large cities — for many years.

But a much larger majority believe the country also is headed in the wrong direction. Back at ya, Republicans. It’s the GOP that’s in total control of the federal government.

Both parties in California have reasons to run scared this year.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: California Democrats unite against Trump, differ on vision for state’s future
Salud: Retired 100-year-old fighter pilot from Escondido receives Medal of Honor
The L.A. Times Special: Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris have traveled parallel paths. Will they collide in 2028?

Until next week,
George Skelton

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

March 1 (UPI) — The Supreme Court will determine whether people who regularly smoke marijuana will be allowed to own guns.

In United States v. Hemani, which goes before the Supreme Court on Monday, the Trump administration will attempt to uphold their prosecution of Ali Danial Hemani, who lives in Texas.

In 2022, FBI officials found that Hemani, who is a dual citizen in the United States and Pakistan, owned a pistol while in possession of marijuana and cocaine.

When Hemani said that he engaged in marijuana use approximately every other day, he was indicted, facing up to 15 years behind bars, but the charge was dismissed.

The 1968 law he allegedly violated was meant to disarm people who used drugs.

An appeals court stated that there was not enough “tradition of gun regulation” to “support disarming a sober person based solely on past substance usage,” USA Today reported.

“I think what the court is being asked to decide, and I would imagine the reason it took the case, is to give some more guidance about what kinds of people can be disarmed without violating the Second Amendment,” said Joseph Blocher, one of the Duke Center for Firearms Law, CBS News reported.

Fundamentally, that’s what this case is about,” Blocher said.

Feb. 25 (UPI) — The Supreme Court‘s ruling to limit President Donald Trump‘s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs is forcing the administration to look to different statutory authorities to carry out its trade policy.

On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that the president could not use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to generate revenue through tariffs. While this caused Trump to seek another avenue to impose tariffs, landing on a global 15% rate through Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, his plans to use tariffs to negotiate trade deals have not changed.

The decision impacts a great deal of the tariffs Trump has enacted during his second term, Purba Mukerji, professor of economics at Connecticut College, told UPI. She said he has been using the IEEPA to give himself “flexibility” in trade negotiations since returning to the White House.

Trump expressed disappointment in the high court’s decision on Friday but Mukerji said it was expected by economists and is unlikely to disrupt the president’s broader economic policy. Tariffs on steel and aluminum, as well as those that target certain sectors, are likely to remain in place.

U.S. markets have not strongly reacted to the Supreme Court ruling in either direction. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell by less than a point on Monday, only to rebound on Tuesday. The S&P 500 followed a similar path.

The yield on 10-year U.S. Treasury notes has reflected some uncertainty, though concerns about AI displacing workers, global tensions and broader trade concerns may be factors as well.

“For the business leaders who make decisions, for importers and exporters and foreign countries that are dealing with us in their trade negotiations, this is not a surprise,” Mukerji said. “So I don’t think there will be any long-lasting consequences of this particular Supreme Court ruling, except to put the whole trade negotiations and trade policy on much firmer footing.”

Consumers hoping to see prices come down are unlikely to see significant changes from the ruling either, Mukerji added.

“As far as consumer prices go, I am encouraged by the fact that we didn’t see the rise in consumer prices that was expected in all sectors coming out of tariffs,” she said. “I don’t expect that to be coming down in the future. I don’t think much will change on the ground.”

A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York published earlier this month reports that 94% of Trump’s tariffs imposed last year were paid by U.S. entities and consumers during the first eight months of 2025.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported in December that it had collected $200 billion in tariff revenue. The largest portion of tariffs collected was on imports from China, a report by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond said. The report is based on data from the U.S. Treasury Department and Census Bureau.

We Pay The Tariffs, a coalition of more than 800 small businesses, is circulating a petition to call for the federal government to refund businesses due to the tariffs being ruled unlawful.

“A legal victory is meaningless without actual relief for the businesses that paid these tariffs,” Dan Anthony, executive director of the organization, said in a statement. “The administration’s only responsible course of action now is to establish a fast, efficient and automatic refund process that returns tariff money to the businesses that paid it.”

It remains unclear what will happen to the revenue the court ruled has been unlawfully collected. The Supreme Court did not address refunds for tariffs paid.

Mukerji said reimbursing collected tariffs poses some practical challenges. She explained that while the United States maintains a database of who has paid what tariffs, it often shows a delivery company, like FedEx, as the entity that made the payment, not the importer who in reality incurred the costs.

“So you kind of have to reimburse FedEx, who then turns around and reimburses the importer,” she said. “That is a mess because then we depend on the account keeping, say by FedEx, so it becomes more complicated there.”

There is also a matter of fairness as some wholesalers pass the costs of tariffs on to retailers, who then pass them on to consumers, Mukerji said.

Following the court’s decision, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the Trump administration will look to Section 122, as well as Section 301 of the Trade Act and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 tariff authorities to pursue “virtually unchanged tariff revenue” this year.

These statutes notably do not require congressional approval to impose tariffs like the Supreme Court affirmed the IEEPA did.

Section 122 gives the president the authority to impose a maximum 15% tariff for up to 150 days. Tariffs imposed under this authority would remain in effect into July at the latest.

Section 301 of the Trade Act gives the president the authority to impose tariffs in response to unfair trade practices, theft of intellectual property and discriminatory policies by trade partners. An investigation by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative must be completed to determine if there is a violation and allow for the use of Section 301 authority.

Trump’s broad tariffs on China were issued in 2018 under the authority of Section 301.

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act allows the president to impose tariffs and other trade restrictions on imports if they are determined to threaten national security. This must be preceded by an investigation by the Commerce Department into the potential of a threat.

Trump used Section 232 to place tariffs on steel and aluminum during his first term.

While President Joe Biden peeled back on many of Trump’s policies when he came into office, he kept some trade policies like these largely intact and reinforced them through investigations.

For Section 301 tariffs, Biden allowed the required four-year review to continue throughout his term, ultimately raising tariffs on electric vehicles from China as well as some semiconductors, critical minerals and other sectors.

For Section 232 tariffs, Biden kept Trump’s tariff framework largely in place and continued to use the national security justification to keep tariffs as a point of negotiations.

“Biden actually made them stronger,” Mukerji said. “Most of them continued under Biden and they were extended and made even stronger. So these trade policies now have the strength of a solid foundation. These stand on the shoulders of investigations so they have this lasting power.”

The Supreme Court’s decision has caused some ongoing negotiations to shift or pause.

Earlier this week, a planned meeting with India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Washington, D.C., was put on hold. The sides were planning to meet for three days to discuss an interim trade deal that would likely go into effect in April.

The European Union’s parliament canceled a vote to ratify a trade deal with the United States on Monday in response to the Supreme Court decision and Trump’s subsequent new tariffs.

“A deal is a deal,” the European Commission said in a statement on Saturday. “As the United States’ largest trading partner, the EU expects the U.S. to honor its commitments set out in the Joint Statement — just as the EU stands by its commitments.”

With the Supreme Court’s decision, the Trump administration and future administrations definitively have one less tool to use when imposing tariffs. The ruling does not mark an end to Trump’s tariff plans. It only clarifies his authority to impose tariffs. Meanwhile, the president is left to negotiate trade deals under greater scrutiny.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday the U.S. Postal Service is shielded from being sued even if its employees intentionally fail to deliver the mail.

In a 5-4 decision, the court said Congress in 1946 had barred lawsuits “arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter,” and that includes mail that is stolen or misdirected by postal employees.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court, said the law broadly bars complaints involving lost or missing mail.

“A ‘miscarriage of mail’ includes failure of the mail to arrive at its intended destination, regardless of the carrier’s intent or where the mail goes instead,” he said.

The ruliing is a setback but not a final defeat for Lebene Konan, a Texas real estate agent who is Black. She had sued contending white postal carriers refused to deliver her mail to two houses where she rented rooms.

She did not live at either property but said she stayed there “from time to time.”

She first complained to the post office in Euless, Texas, after she learned the mail carrier had changed the listed owner on a central postal box from Konan’s name to a tenant’s name.

After two years of frustration, she sued the United States in 2022 alleging the Postal Service had intentionally and wrongly withheld her mail. She sought damages for emotional distress, a loss of rental income and for racial discrimination.

Her claim of racial bias was dismissed by a federal judge and a U.S. appeals court and did not figure in the Supreme Court’s decision.

However, the 5th Circuit Court ruled she could go forward with her suit alleging she was a victim of intentional misconduct on the part of postal employees.

The Biden and Trump administrations urged the court to hear the case and to reject lawsuits against the Postal Service based on claims of intentional wrongdoing.

They said the 5th Circuit’s ruling could “open the floodgates of litigation.” They noted the Postal Service delivers about 113 billion pieces of mail per year and receives about 335,000 complaints over lost mail and other matters.

“We hold that the postal exception covers suits against the United States for the intentional nondelivery of mail,” Thomas said. “We do not decide whether all of Konan’s claims are barred.”

Joining Thomas to limit lawsuits against the Postal Service were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the law refers to a “loss” or “miscarriage” of the mail, which suggests negligence.

“Today, the court holds that one exception — the postal exception — prevents individuals from recovering for injuries based on a postal employee’s intentional misconduct, including when an employee maliciously withholds their mail,” Sotomayor wrote.

Joining her were Justices Elena Kagan, Neil M. Gorsuch and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who has a way of saying the quiet parts out loud in defending President Trump’s economic policies, told the truth again Friday, during a public appearance a few hours after the Supreme Court threw out most of Trump’s tariffs.

Asked about the prospects that Americans would be receiving refunds of the illegal tariffs paid since Trump imposed them in April, Bessent replied with a condescending smirk: “I get a feeling the American people won’t see it.”

A couple of things about that. One is that there doesn’t seem to be any legal question that those who paid the tariffs are entitled to refunds. In his 6-3 ruling invalidating levies imposed on imports under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, or IEEPA, Chief Justice John Roberts made clear that those tariffs were unconstitutional and illegal from their inception.

Therefore, there’s no excuse for the government to hold on to the money it has collected — estimated at somewhere between $135 billion and $170 billion. But Roberts didn’t state whether refunds are warranted or, if so, how they should be calculated and distributed.

Trump has dangled the prospect of tariff refunds — actually, tariff “dividend” checks of $2,000 — in front of taxpayers for months. In effect, that would mean returning to taxpayers the money that his tariffs have cost them. Bessent’s comments put paid to that promise.

Today, no one is arguing seriously that checks should be cut for taxpayers — except Illinois Gov. JB Pritzer, who demanded refund checks totalling $8.7 billion for his constituents. But that has the aroma of a campaign stunt for Pritzker, who is running for a third term and may be positioning himself for a presidential run.

By not specifying a refund process, the Supreme Court decision left a vacuum that Bessent tried to fill. In his comments, he explained why refunds will be nothing but a dream for the average American — and those comments were chilling.

First, he said, Trump has the authority to reimpose the same tariffs under different laws. Indeed, Trump has already announced that he will be imposing 15% tariffs across the board.

He also signaled that although Roberts pushed refund decisions down to the Court of International Trade, the government is poised to challenge importers’ applications for reimbursement, generating litigation that “can be dragged out for weeks, months, years.”

In other words, Bessent implied that, far from resolving the economic confusion Trump has generated through his on-again-off-again tariff policies during 2025, the court’s decision provoked Trump to inject even more uncertainty into U.S. trade relations and domestic business decisions.

That dime appeared to drop for stock market investors Monday. The markets rose modestly in a relief rally Friday after the Supreme Court released its decision, but tumbled Monday as Trump doubled down on tariffs. At the close, the Dow Jones industrial average was down by 821.91 points, or nearly 1.7%, and the Nasdaq and Standard & Poor’s 500 indices both fell by more than 1%.

Bessent didn’t mention the most important reason why American consumers are unlikely to see anything resembling a tariff refund.

Tariffs on imported products are, by any measure, a tax on domestic consumers. Economic opinion is virtually unanimous on that point. As I reported in January, the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, a German think tank, concluded that 96% of the 2025 Trump tariffs were paid by American importers and their domestic clients.

“The tariffs are, in the most literal sense, an own goal,” Kiel’s researchers wrote. “Americans are footing the bill.” Their conclusion was largely echoed earlier this month by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which placed the burden on American importers and consumers at “nearly 90%.”

That said, the specifics of tariff payments are in the hands of importers and retailers, which keep records of how much they’ve paid and on what products or parts. Consumers don’t normally know the numbers. (I actually received an invoice last year breaking out the tariffs charged by a Japanese retailer on a set of pens I had bought for a birthday present, but since the sum came to $12 I’m not sure that demanding a refund from the government would be worth it.)

So far, about 1,500 businesses have filed claims for refunds through the Court of International Trade. Most filed these claims to secure for themselves a position in the scrum for refunds, like music fans lining up overnight for tickets to a star’s upcoming concert.

Many of these businesses may not actually have put a number on their claim. Costco, perhaps the biggest retailer to file with the CIT, didn’t say in its Nov. 28 filing how much it thought it was owed, possibly because it was still bound to pay the tariffs until the Supreme Court issued a final decision.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which actually computes and collects the tariffs, says it will cease collecting the invalidated levies when the clock strikes 12:01 a.m. Tuesday morning.

What consumers don’t know is how much of the tariffs have been passed down to them. Some sellers decided to eat some or all of the tariffs to keep consumer prices steady. Some may have stocked up on tariff-eligible products ahead of the formal imposition of the levies.

Will retailers seek out customers who paid higher prices on products that were tariffed to hand them refunds? None has said that such an eventuality is in the cards, though it might not be surprising to see some businesses use the end of tariffs as a marketing device — you know, “We’re cutting prices on Toyotas during ‘tariff freedom month!’” etc., etc.

It’s also conceivable that retailers passed imaginary tariff costs on to their customers, putting through price increases that had nothing to do with the levies but could be blamed on them anyway.

That’s what happened after Trump imposed tariffs on washing machines, which were almost all foreign-made, in 2018. According to a 2020 survey by Federal Reserve and University of Chicago economists, the tariffs forced washing machine prices up by nearly 12%, or about $86 each. The researchers discovered, however, that prices on clothes dryers increased by about the same amount, even though they weren’t subject to the tariffs at all.

What happened? The researchers conjectured that because washers and dryers are typically sold as pairs, retailers may have simply spread the washing machine cost increase between the two products to keep their prices similar. It’s also possible that retailers, figuring that consumers would expect to pay more for tariffed washing machines and would assume the same effect held for dryers, charged more for the latter to fatten their profits. One wouldn’t expect consumer refunds in those cases.

Another imponderable is the effect of Trump’s tariffs on the U.S. consumer economy generally. The Trump tariffs cost the average American household the equivalent of a tax increase of about $1,000, the Tax Foundation has calculated.

About $600 of that sum was due to the IEEPA tariffs now struck down. But the new tariffs Trump announced after the Supreme Court ruling will raise the tariff tax for American families by $300 to $700, the Foundation reported — potentially a greater total burden than existed before the court’s action.

All of Trump’s tariffs increased the average tariff rate to 13.8%, the Foundation reckoned. The Supreme Court’s ruling reduced that to about 6% — still the highest U.S. tariff rate since 1971 — but the new 15% tariff Trump announced would raise the applied rate back to 12.1%. By law, the new tariff can remain in effect for only five months unless it’s extended by Congress. In 2022, America’s applied tariff rate was 1.5%.

Perhaps the most immediate question facing businesses is how refund claims will be administered. In his dissent to Roberts’ IEEPA decision, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that “the refund process is likely to be a ‘mess.’”

Possibly Kavanaugh’s concern was that the Court of International Trade will have to adjudicate 1,500 claims one by one. But it need not be so.

In 1998, the Supreme Court declared a Harbor Maintenance Tax on exports, based on the constitutional provision that exports can’t be taxed. Responsibility for those refunds also fell to the Court of International Trade, which established a standardized procedure for claims. Even under the streamlined system, however, the resolution of all those claims took until 2005, or seven years. And that involved only about $1 billion in claims, not the more than $130 billion at stake today.

What remains unexplained in the miasma created by Trump’s tariff policies is why he is doing this. None of his rationales has been borne out. The tariffs haven’t restored manufacturing employment in the U.S., which have fallen throughout Trump’s current term. They haven’t eliminated America’s trade deficit with the rest of the world, which has persisted since 1975 and — despite Trump’s assertions — isn’t anywhere close to an economic crisis.

As it happens, while the overall trade deficit fell modestly last year by less than $3 billion, or about one-third of 1%, most of the reduction was in services; the deficit in goods rose by $25.5 billion to a record $1.24 trillion.

All that’s left is Trump’s inclination to wield tariffs as tools of geopolitical bullying. He has raised or threatened to raise tariffs on Brazil because of that country’s criminal pursuit of former President Jair Bolsonaro for leading a coup attempt; on Switzerland because he felt dissed by a Swiss government leader; and on several European countries for thwarting his effort to annex Greenland.

None of those actions bore fruit (Bolsonaro was convicted and is currently serving a 27-year prison sentence). America’s trading partners plainly recognize that the new tariffs must expire within 150 days and can’t be renewed without action by a Congress plainly queasy about giving Trump his tariffs back after the Supreme Court took them away. They don’t seem to be taking Trump seriously.

They can tell that on tariffs, as on many other things, Trump is increasingly behaving like a lame duck, albeit one with a whim of iron. But as the stock market seemed to be telling us Monday, even a whim of iron can be very, very costly.

Feb. 24 (UPI) — Panama authorities have taken control of two ports operated by a subsidiary of a Hong Kong company, assets that came under scrutiny after President Donald Trump claimed China exerted too much influence over their operation.

Hong Kong-based conglomerate CK Hutchison Holdings condemned the Monday takeover in a statement on Tuesday that said the actions of Panama were “unlawful” and raised risks to the operations, health and safety of the Balboa and Critobal terminals that its subsidiary, Panama Ports, has been operating for decades.

“None of the actions by the Panama State were advised to or coordinate with PPC,” Hutchison Holdings said.

“The Panama State is responsible for harm and damage caused by the confiscatory actions it has taken.”

On Monday morning, Panama’s official gazette published a late-January Supreme Court ruling that made final the court’s decision that the contract law granting Panama Ports Company’s concession extension to operate the ports was unconstitutional.

The ruling came in a pair of lawsuits filed challenging the contract, which was issued by the Maritime Authority of Panama on June 23, 2021. According to a statement from the Panama presidency’s office, the contract was found unconstitutional because it gave a foreign-based company broad rights that limited the state’s control over the use and management of its resources.

After the gazette was published, Panama authorities arrived at the two ports and informed representatives of the Panama Ports Company that it must cease operations, and that those who do not comply with their orders will be prosecuted.

“PPC and CKHH will continue to consult with their legal advisors regarding the ruling and forceful takeover, the purported termination of PPC’s concession and all available recourse, including additional national and international legal proceedings against the Republic of Panama and its agents and third parties colluding with them,” CK Hutchison Holdings said.

The two ports and their Hong Kong connection were thrust into the spotlight on the first day of Trump’s second presidency, when in his inaugural address he said the United States has been “treated very badly” by Panama and that “China is operating the Panama Canal.”

Trump has repeatedly made the claim since, drawing attention to the Hong Kong-based conglomerate that has operated the two ports since 1997.

Seoul shares surged more than 2 percent Tuesday to close at a fresh record high above the 5,900-point mark, driven by strong gains in technology shares. The Korean won fell against the U.S. dollar.

The benchmark Korea Composite Stock Price Index (KOSPI) advanced 123.55 points, or 2.11 percent, to finish at an all-time high of 5,969.64.

The index has extended its upward momentum in recent weeks, surpassing the 5,000-point mark for the first time on Jan. 27 and crossing 5,500 on Feb. 12. It moved above 5,800 on Friday.

Trading volume was heavy at 1.58 billion shares worth 30.73 trillion won (US$21.3 billion), with decliners outnumbering gainers 465 to 407.

Institutions bought a net 2.37 trillion won worth of stocks, offsetting net sales of 199.16 billion won by foreign investors and 2.28 trillion won by retail investors.

The rally came despite overnight losses on Wall Street.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 1.66 percent, and the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite declined 1.13 percent.

In Seoul, investors scooped up major chip stocks ahead of an earnings report from U.S. chipmaker Nvidia later this week, while remaining cautious over U.S. President Donald Trump‘s push to impose new tariffs after the Supreme Court struck down his original sweeping duties, analysts said.

Trump signed an executive order Friday (U.S. time) authorizing new 10 percent global tariffs that took effect Tuesday. He has also threatened to raise the rate to 15 percent, though no formal order has been issued.

“Even if the global tariffs are raised to 15 percent, there will be no major impact on the local stock market because current U.S. tariffs on Korean imports already stand at 15 percent,” an analyst at IBK Securities Co. said.

Technology and automobile stocks led the gains.

Market bellwether Samsung Electronics jumped 3.63 percent to 200,000 won, while chip giant SK hynix surged 5.68 percent to a record high of 1,005,000 won.

Top automaker Hyundai Motor rose 0.19 percent to 524,000 won, and leading battery maker LG Energy Solution gained 4.17 percent to 412,500 won.

Among decliners, shipbuilder Hanwha Ocean fell 2.79 percent to 143,100 won, and Lotte Shopping declined 1.67 percent to 111,700 won.

The Korean won was quoted at 1,442.50 won against the U.S. dollar at 3:30 p.m., down 2.5 won from the previous session.

Bond prices, which move inversely to yields, closed lower. The yield on three-year Treasurys rose 0.4 basis point to 3.158 percent, and the return on the benchmark five-year government bonds also climbed 0.5 basis point to 3.410 percent.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

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.