supreme court

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court’s conservative majority on Wednesday sharply limited a part of the Voting Rights Act that has forced states to draw voting districts to help elect Black or Latino representatives to Congress as well as state and local boards.

In a 6-3 decision in Louisiana vs. Callais, the court ruled that creating these majority-minority districts may amount to racial discrimination that violates the 14th Amendment.

When weighing what the Voting Rights Act requires, “we start with the general rule that the Constitution almost never permits the federal government or a state to discriminate on the basis of race,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the court.

Alito said states may draw election districts for partisan advantage but may not use race as a basis for redistricting.

The ruling in a Louisiana case appears to clear the way for Republican-led states across the South to redraw their election maps and eliminate voting districts that favor Black or Latino candidates for Congress, state legislatures and county boards.

UCLA law professor Rick Hasen said, “It is hard to overstate what an earthquake this will be for American politics,” adding that the decision makes the Voting Rights Act a “much weaker, and potentially toothless law.”

Hasen said it’s unclear how the decision will affect the November election because in many states early voting has already started and primaries have already taken place.

But the ruling’s long-term consequences for minority representation in Congress, state legislatures and local government are almost “certainly” going to be felt in 2028, Hasen said.

Republican leaders in states across the South have already signaled they intend to move quickly to redraw congressional maps in the wake of the ruling.

Alabama Atty. Gen. Steve Marshall said the state will “act as quickly as possible” to ensure its congressional maps “reflect the will of the people, not a racial quota system the Constitution forbids.” Marshall called the decision a recognition of how much the South has changed since the civil rights era.

“The court rightly acknowledged that the South has made extraordinary progress, and that laws designed for a different era do not reflect the present reality,” he said in a statement.

Florida was already in motion before the ruling came down. But Gov. Ron DeSantis celebrated the decision and said it was all the more reason for state lawmakers to redraw its congressional maps, in a manner that could give Republicans up to four more seats in Congress.

The proposed congressional maps, drawn by DeSantis’ office, were first unveiled to Fox News on Monday. On Wednesday, both chambers approved the maps, and readied them for DeSantis’ final approval.

In Mississippi, Gov. Tate Reeves had already called lawmakers into a special session at the end of May in anticipation of a court ruling on the Voting Rights Act. In a post on X, Reeves underscored the ideological underpinnings to the ruling’s potential implications.

“First Dobbs. Now Callais. Just Mississippi and Louisiana down here saving our country!” Reeves wrote.

Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) speaks at a news conference outside the U.S. Capitol after the Supreme Court ruling.

(Tom Williams / CQ-Roll Call / Getty Images)

At issue was how to ensure equal representation for Black and Latino citizens.

About one-third of Louisiana’s voters are Black, but the state seeks an election map that will elect white Republicans to five of its six seats in the House of Representatives.

Lower courts said that map violated the Voting Rights Act because it denied fair representation to Black residents.

The state had one Black-majority district, in New Orleans.

Two years ago, judges upheld the creation of a second Black-majority district that stretched from Shreveport to Baton Rouge on the grounds that it was required under the law.

The state’s Republican leaders appealed and argued that race was the motivating factor in drawing the second district.

Alito and the conservatives agreed and called that district an “unconstitutional racial gerrymander.”

The three liberals dissented. The consequences of the ruling “are likely to be far-reaching and grave,” said Justice Elena Kagan, adding that it will allow “racial vote dilution in its most classic form.”

She said the decision means “a state can, without legal consequence, systematically dilute minority citizens’ voting power. Of course, the majority does not announce today’s holding that way. Its opinion is understated, even antiseptic.”

But she said states across the South may draw electoral districts that deprive Black voters of equal representation. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed.

The decision was the latest example of a partisan political dispute in which the court’s six Republican appointees vote in favor of the Republican state plan, while the three Democratic appointees dissent.

The ruling is likely to have its greatest impact in the Southern states, where white Republicans are in control and Black Democrats are in the minority.

The court’s divide over redistricting is similar to the long dispute over affirmative action.

For decades, university officials said they needed to consider the race of applicants to achieve diversity and equal representation.

But in 2023, the court by a 6-3 vote struck down college affirmative action policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina and ruled race may not be used to judge applicants.

The historic Voting Rights Act of 1965 succeeded in clearing the way for Black citizens to register and vote across the South, but it took longer for Black candidates to win elections.

The dispute was highlighted in a 1980 case from Mobile, Ala. Its three commissioners were elected to six-year terms, and each of them ran countywide.

Even though one-third of the county’s voters were Black, white candidates always won.

The Supreme Court upheld this arrangement as legal and constitutional. In dissent, Justice Thurgood Marshall said Black residents were left with the right to cast meaningless ballots.

In response, Congress amended the Voting Rights Act in 1982 to say states must give minorities an opportunity to elect representatives of their choice.

Four years later, the Supreme Court interpreted that to mean that states had a duty to draw voting districts that would elect a Black or Latino candidate if these minorities had a sufficiently large number of voters in a particular area.

In recent years, the court’s conservatives, led by Justice Clarence Thomas, have chafed at the rule on the grounds it sometimes required states to use race as a factor for drawing election districts.

Alito’s opinion adopted that view and said states are not required or permitted to use race as a basis for drawing districts.

Hours after the ruling came out, President Trump met with reporters in the Oval Office and said he had not yet seen the decision. He was visibly excited, however, when a reporter explained the decision favored Republicans.

“I love it!” he said. “This is very good.”

Former President Obama said in a statement that the court’s decision “effectively guts a key pillar of the Voting Rights Act, freeing state legislatures to gerrymander legislative districts to systematically dilute and weaken the voting power of racial minorities — so long as they do it under the guise of ‘partisanship’ rather than explicit racial bias.”

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, in Los Angeles, also denounced the decision.

“The Supreme Court’s decision blesses racially discriminatory gerrymandering, and dismantles the legal protections for minority voters,” said Nina Perales, the group’s vice president for litigation. It “openly invites states to dilute minority voting strength, and undermines our democracy.”

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court’s conservative majority sounded ready Wednesday to rule that the Trump administration may end the temporary protection that has been granted to more than 1.3 million immigrants from troubled countries.

Congress in 1990 authorized Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, for noncitizens who could not safely return home because their native country was wracked by war, violence or natural disasters. If those people passed a strict background check, they could stay and work legally in this country.

But President Trump came to office believing too many immigrants had been granted permission to enter and stay indefinitely.

Last year, his Department of Homeland Security moved to cancel the temporary humanitarian protection for immigrants from 13 countries, including Venezuela, Haiti, Syria, Honduras and Nicaragua. Court challenges on behalf of Haitians and Syrians were consolidated into a single case, Mullin vs. Doe, which the justices heard Wednesday.

Immigrant-rights advocates challenged those decisions as political and unjustified, and they won orders from federal judges that blocked the cancellations.

But Trump’s lawyers filed an emergency appeal at the Supreme Court arguing the judges had overstepped their authority. They pointed to a provision in the 1990 law that bars “judicial review” of the government’s decision to end temporary protection for a particular country.

The justices ruled for the administration and set aside the lower court rulings in a series of 6-3 orders.

Faced with criticism over its brief and unexplained orders, the justices agreed to hear arguments on the TPS issue on the last day of oral arguments for this term.

But the ideological divide appeared to be unchanged.

Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said Congress had prohibited “judicial micromanagement” of these decisions, and none of six conservatives disagreed.

UCLA law professor Ahilan T. Arulanantham, representing several thousand Syrians, said the Homeland Security secretary had failed to consult the State Department, which says it is unsafe to travel there.

He said the government “reads the statute like it’s a blank check … to give the secretary the power to expel people who have done nothing wrong.”

Chicago attorney Geoffrey Pipoply, representing more than 350,000 Haitians, said the cancellations were driven by “the president’s racial animus toward non-white immigrants.”

The court’s three liberals argued the administration failed to follow the procedural steps required under the law. But that argument failed to gain traction.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett and her husband adopted two children from Haiti who are citizens. Like most of the conservatives, she asked few questions during the argument.

April 29 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Louisiana’s newly drawn congressional map Wednesday, saying it relied too heavily on race.

The 6-3 decision eliminates one of the two predominantly Black congressional districts established by redistricting from the 2020 census.

Supporters of the redrawn map said it abided by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prevents lawmakers from packing racial minorities in a limited number of districts or spreading them across too many to diminish their voting power.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, described Louisiana’s map as “unconstitutional gerrymander.”

“When §2 of the Act is properly interpreted, it imposes liability only when circumstances give rise to a strong inference that intentional discrimination occurred,” he wrote.

The ruling weakens the landmark Voting Rights Act passed in 1965 to limit racial discrimination in voting. The Supreme Court dealt the act a blow in 2013 when it struck a core provision providing oversight to states with a history of voting discrimination.

With the new ruling by the high court, Republican lawmakers will have an easier time redrawing state maps to more closely align with their party.

Justice Elena Kagan, one of the three dissenters, said such intentional discrimination is hard to prove and that Wednesday’s decision serves to “eviscerate the law.”

“Under the Court’s new view of Section 2, a State can, without legal consequence, systematically dilute minority citizens’ voting power,” she wrote.

It’s unlikely the Supreme Court’s ruling will have an impact on midterm elections later this year as early voting in congressional primaries begin May 16.

Eight candidates for California governor shared a stage for 90 minutes Tuesday night, their second of three scheduled debates before the June 2 primary.

My colleagues Gustavo Arellano and Mark Z. Barabak joined me to decide who the winner was, or if there was a winner at all.

Arellano: The real MVP in this debate? State Supt. Tony Thurmond.

He brought up his family story — child of a Panamanian immigrant who lost his parents young, someone familiar with “government cheese” as sustenance growing up — in a way that didn’t sound forced or pedantic.

He usually stayed within the time limits that were barely enforced by moderators. And he kept knocking down Chad Bianco again and again, drawing applause when he brought up the Riverside County sheriff’s takeover of hundreds of thousands of ballots.

Thurmond is the only gubernatorial candidate currently holding a statewide position, a former Richmond City Council member and Assembly member. “Elect someone with a lived experience,” he told the audience in his closing statement.

So why has Thurmond polled so low again and again to the point that he keeps not getting invited to debates and therefore not getting in front of California voters?

California has never elected a Black governor — in fact, the state is notorious for not voting in Tom Bradley in 1982 even though polls showed him leading George Deukmejian all the way to Election Day (the phenomenon of voters telling pollsters what they think they want to hear instead of what they actually feel is now known as the Bradley Effect).

As California’s Black population keeps shrinking, it would’ve been wonderful to see Thurmond do better than he has.

Chabria: Gustavo is spot on with his take on Thurmond. He came across as polished, capable and knowledgeable. But also, he’s just too far down in the polls for any kind of comeback.

In my mind, though, Xavier Becerra was the clear winner. No, he didn’t blow the other candidates away.

But he landed more than one punch that will almost certainly be on social media feeds for weeks to come, especially when he went at Republican Steve Hilton. Early on, he called President Trump “Hilton’s daddy.” Later, he quipped at Hilton, “We don’t need a talking head for Fox News to tell us how the government works.”

The debate was chaotic in more than one moment, but Becerra managed to get more than his share of airtime and use it wisely. Tom Steyer, the other Democratic front-runner, mired himself in wonk-talk. He wanted to get deep into policy, and got lost in complicated issues such as oil refineries.

Steyer didn’t have a single memorable line, though his closing statement did redeem him somewhat. He called himself the “change maker,” and promised, “if you want change, there is only one person on this stage they are afraid of” — they being tech titans, oil companies and other gods of industry.

It was the same for Katie Porter and Matt Mahan, who didn’t do anything wrong, but also, didn’t break out.

But those back-and-forths of Becerra and Hilton are priceless because they’re quick and shareable. I won’t be surprised to see voters drift Becerra’s way, even if only a bit.

Barabak: No runs, no hits, no errors. Seven men — and one woman — left standing.

I didn’t see, or hear, anything that seems very likely to drastically shake up or dramatically reorder the governor’s race. No breakout performance that will launch any of the candidates into clear-cut front-runner status. No major gaffes to leave any of the contestants sprawled on the killing floor.

So to that extent, I would score Becerra as the evening’s (modest) winner. He’s clearly having a moment, surging from political near-death to the top tier in polls. (Though, let’s be clear, it’s still a muddle, with several candidates bunched in the 15%-20% support range.)

There have been suggestions Becerra needs to show a bit more fight and he did so Tuesday, in particular taking on Hilton. Some of his jabs seemed a bit forced and stagy. (That line about Trump as “Hilton’s daddy.”)

Better, as Anita noted, was the jab from the former congressman, state attorney general and Biden cabinet secretary about a Fox “talking head” explaining how government works.

I found Porter to be crisp and authoritative on policy; Steyer to be repetitive (I’m the only change agent on this stage, look how much money is being spent to stop me — though it’s a small fraction of the sum he’s sunk into his vanity-cruise campaign); Mahan and Antonio Villaraigosa to be largely afterthoughts, and Bianco to have all the warmth and appeal of the grouchy old man telling kids in the neighborhood to get off his damn lawn!

The Riverside County sheriff seemed not to be running for governor of California, but rather mayor of MAGA-ville, a strategy apparently intended to nab one of two spots in the June primary, allowing him to go on to crushing defeat in November.

I agree that perhaps the night’s most surprising performance came from Thurmond. The state schools superintendent is mired in bare single digits in polls and only just made the debate stage after being left out of last week’s meetup in San Francisco.

His chances of being California’s next governor are somewhere between zero and nil, which is why he escaped serious scrutiny. That said, he made the most of the 90 minutes on stage, laying out his compelling up-from-poverty life story and seeming to relish taking on Bianco in particular.

Too little, too late. But Thurmond certainly acquitted himself well.

What else you should be reading
The must-read: ‘This is like the Russian mafia’: L.A. judge elections see unusual drama
The deep dive: Gavin Newsom wants to break up with Elon Musk. Tesla is making that difficult.
The L.A. Times Special: John Seymour, Anaheim mayor and U.S. senator, dies at 88

Stay Golden,

Anita Chabria

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

WASHINGTON, April 28 (UPI) — Supreme Court justices appeared divided Tuesday morning about whether a U.S. tech company can be held liable for aiding the Chinese government’s alleged torture of a spiritual minority.

The case is centers on whether practitioners in China of the Falun Gong religion — also called Falun Dafa — can sue California-based tech company Cisco Systems for aiding and abetting violations of the 18th-century Alien Tort Statute and the Torture Victim Protection Act, which was enacted in 1992.

Cisco attorney Kannon Shanmugam called for barring aiding and abetting liability. He argued that allowing liability to be implied would harm the government’s separation of power.

Much of Tuesday’s debate hinged on whether the statute’s 200-year-old “law of nations” wording was applicable to the relatively more modern concept of human rights abuses, as well as whether the first Congress meant for the victim protection act to include second liability for aiding and abetting torture.

The case marks the latest attempt to define the scope of the statue, which for over two centuries has allowed foreigners to bring lawsuits in U.S. courts for serious violations of international law.

More than 20 years ago, Cisco developed and sold to the Chinese government a surveillance system, which the government used to find, interrogate and allegedly torture Falun Gong practitioners.

During arguments for Cisco Systems Inc. vs. Doe I, some justices emphasized Cisco’s awareness of their technology’s role in persecution, while others said that including liability for aiding torture in the alien tort statue contradicted with historical precedent and had foreign policy risks.

But no clear majority converged around either position in the conservative majority court.

“We’ve maybe misled Congress into thinking, ‘Oh, we don’t need to do anything about these human rights things, the courts are taking care of it,'” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said.

“I’m concerned at a separation of powers level that we’re not really allowing suits to go forward, but Congress thinks we are because of a lack of clarity in our case law.”

Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sotomayor appeared more supportive of those who brought forward the original lawsuit — several Chinese nationals and one U.S. citizen.

Addressing the wording of the Torture Victim Protection Act, Sotomayor told Shanmugam: “I’m not sure how you get to your position that ‘subjects to’ can’t mean aiding and abetting because command liability doesn’t necessarily require subjecting someone to the torture.”

“It makes someone who’s in a command position who knows of the torture and permits it to happen … aiding and abetting. We’ve defined aiding and abetting as an active step in permitting and encouraging the substantive act.”

The Alien Tort Statute grants federal district courts original jurisdiction over any civil action in which an alien sues for a tort “committed in violation of the law of nations or of a treaty of the United States.”

“What’s the point of previous [Supreme Court] decisions that determined U.S. corporations could be defendants?” said Sophia Cope, senior staff attorney at Electronic Frontier Foundation, who helped write an amicus brief in support of the Falun Gong members.

“Excluding second liability from the ATS would be a huge loophole for companies to sell services which are used for human rights violations.”

By rejecting judicially created aiding and abetting liability, the court would close the last major loophole that the plaintiffs’ lawyers have “exploited” to keep cases with such claims under the ATS and TVPA alive, said Cory Andrews, vice-president of litigation at the Washington Legal Foundation. The foundation submitted a brief in support of Cisco in February.

“It would reaffirm that the ATS is a narrow 1789 statute, not a modern vehicle for global human-rights enforcement,” Andrews said.

The case had its origins 15 years ago. In 2011, the plaintiffs — 13 Chinese nationals and one U.S. citizen — filed the original suit in the District Court for the Northern District of California, claiming they were targeted using Cisco’s technology and then detained and tortured.

The district court dismissed the claims, but it was brought to the Supreme Court after a panel of federal judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed in 2023 that the plaintiffs had met a legal threshold to continue with the lawsuit.

A decision is expected by the end of June.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will hear arguments this week over whether the Trump administration may revoke temporary protected status for about 350,000 Haitian and 6,100 Syrian immigrants.

TPS allows people who are already in the United States to legally reside and work here if they are unable to safely return to their home country because of a sudden emergency such as war or a natural disaster. The humanitarian program, enacted by Congress in 1990, has since been used by Republican and Democratic administrations alike.

Since President Trump returned to office last year, his administration has terminated such protections for immigrants from 13 countries. Court challenges on behalf of Haitians and Syrians have been consolidated into a single case, Mullin vs. Doe, which the justices will hear Wednesday.

The high court’s ruling could eventually have sweeping repercussions for all 1.3 million immigrants from the 17 countries that were designated for TPS at the start of this administration. That’s because the federal government is arguing that decisions regarding the program are almost entirely immune from review by courts.

“Temporary means temporary and the final word will not be from activist judges legislating from the bench,” a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson, who did not provide their name, wrote in response to a request for comment.

Lower courts have repeatedly deemed the administration’s actions improper.

“We’re seeing clear gamesmanship from government to insulate all TPS decision-making from any oversight,” said Emi MacLean, a senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, who is counsel in the case for Syrians and in other cases challenging five of the terminations. “They’ve created a farce of a process to justify the ends that they sought, which was to strip humanitarian protections from over a million people.”

In the Trump administration’s appeal, Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer argued that Congress gave the Homeland Security secretary the power to grant or end the temporary protected status for troubled countries and barred judges from intervening.

He pointed to a provision that says: “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.”

Citing this hands-off provision, Trump’s lawyers won brief emergency orders last year that allowed the administration to strip legal protections from about 600,000 Venezuelans. In that case, then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had quickly reversed an extension granted by the Biden administration three days before Trump was sworn in.

The circumstances surrounding the Syria and Haiti cases are different. Advocates for the immigrants argue that the administration failed to conduct the required process to properly evaluate each country’s conditions.

They point to emails in July from a Homeland Security official to a State Department official. The Homeland Security official listed TPS designations coming up for review — Syria, South Sudan, Myanmar and Ethiopia. In response, the State Department official wrote: “I confirm that State has no foreign policy concerns with ending these TPS designations.”

State Department travel advisories for both countries warn people against traveling to either because of the risk of terrorism, kidnapping and widespread violence. U.S. citizens are advised to prepare a will.

For Syria, the advisory cites active armed conflict since 2011. For Haiti, it says the country has been under a national state of emergency since March 2024.

But Federal Register notices announcing the terminations said country conditions had sufficiently improved. The notice for Syria, for example, says “the Secretary has determined that, while some sporadic and episodic violence occurs in Syria, the situation no longer meets the criteria for an ongoing armed conflict that poses a serious threat to the personal safety of returning Syrian nationals.”

If the government loses, Homeland Security officials would have to reevaluate the TPS decisions in consultation with the State Department and make a decision based entirely on the country conditions themselves.

The government could start over, in that case, and still find that TPS is no longer warranted — if the process bears that out.

In a friend-of-the-court brief led by immigration law scholars at Georgetown and Temple universities, they explained that before TPS existed, similar forms of humanitarian relief were determined by the executive branch “without reference to any statutory criteria or constraints, and with little if any explanation for why nationals of certain countries received protection while others did not.”

With TPS in 1990, Congress sought to end that “unfettered discretion,” they wrote. Instead, the statute requires the Homeland Security secretary to terminate TPS if the review finds that conditions justifying the designation no longer exist. Otherwise, the law states, it “is extended.”

“The point of the TPS statute was to depoliticize humanitarian decisions,” said MacLean, the ACLU attorney. “Secretary Noem in all of her TPS decisions has completely undermined that fundamental goal.”

Ahilan Arulanantham, who is arguing for the Syria case on Wednesday, added that if the government wins, “it also means they could probably grant TPS to countries that don’t deserve it.” Arulanantham, co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA, has represented the National TPS Alliance in separate litigation during this administration and Trump’s first.

Top Homeland Security and State Department officials from the George W. Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden administrations filed a brief arguing that the Trump administration’s terminations of TPS for Syria and Haiti were “not based on evidence and sharply departed from past inter-agency practices.”

Haiti was originally designated for TPS in 2010 after a massive earthquake devastated the country and redesignated because of subsequent natural disasters and gang violence. In November, Noem announced that she would terminate TPS for Haiti, effective Feb. 3. She wrote in the Federal Register that “there are no extraordinary and temporary conditions in Haiti” that prevent Haitians from safely returning.

But even if there were, she continued, “termination of Temporary Protected Status of Haiti is still required because it is contrary to the national interest of the United States.”

The Homeland Security spokesperson said TPS for Haiti “was never intended to be a de facto amnesty program, yet that’s how previous administrations have used it for decades.”

Syria, meanwhile, “has been a hotbed of terrorism and extremism for nearly two decades,” the spokesperson wrote, “and it is contrary to our national interest to allow Syrians to remain in our country.”

In the Federal Register notice for Syria, Noem added that maintaining its TPS designation would “complicate the administration’s broader diplomatic engagement with Syria’s transitional government” by undermining peace-building efforts.

The Supreme Court will take up the question of whether the Homeland Security secretary can use national interest as a reason to revoke TPS. Attorneys for the TPS holders believe any decision to revoke TPS must come down to the country conditions alone.

Syria and Haiti are among the countries for which the Trump administration has also paused processing all immigration benefits. If their TPS protections expire, those immigrants would become vulnerable to detention and deportation even if they are eligible for other forms of relief.

U.S. Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer argued that Congress gave the Homeland Security secretary the power to grant or end the temporary protected status for troubled countries and barred judges from intervening.

(Aaron Schwartz / Getty Images)

Attorneys for the TPS holders say the terminations were also driven by racial animus. They point to various statements by Trump over the years, including his false claim that Haitians were eating the pets of people in Springfield, Ohio, that they “probably have AIDS” and that Haiti is among the “shithole countries” from which he would permanently pause migration.

Among those affected is a 35-year-old Haitian woman who has lived in the U.S. since 2000 and is raising her four U.S. citizen children in a Southern state. The woman requested to be identified by her middle and last initials, B.B., out of concern for her immigration case.

After graduating high school, B.B. got into nursing school but couldn’t attend because she didn’t qualify for financial aid. She said later getting TPS allowed her to become a certified nursing assistant, and she now works as a medical coordinator while owning a nail salon and three real estate properties.

Though B.B.’s TPS remains active because of the court proceedings, her driver’s license expired Feb. 3 and she has since had to rely on friends and rideshares to get around while repeatedly requesting a renewal.

She said she worries most about her children. If she were deported back to Haiti, she said, she would leave them in the U.S. for their own safety.

“It’s like planning your death,” she said. “I’m 35 and I already have a will — not because I’m going to die but because of the situation.”

On a call with reporters, attorneys and advocates, a Syrian man said he earned his master’s degree in the U.S. and now works in the healthcare industry. The man, who was identified by a pseudonym, said he and his wife are afraid of what their future will look like.

“TPS gave us something we had not had in years: a place to settle and a moment to grieve,” he said, later adding that “telling Syrians to go back right now is not a policy — it’s abandonment.”

Among the public, there is broad support for TPS and other humanitarian programs. According to a poll conducted last month by the firm Equis Research, 68% of Latino and 65% of non-Latino voters support fighting to give back legal protection to those who have lost their temporary protected status or asylum protections as a result of the current administration’s actions.

Earlier this month, the House voted in favor of a bill that would require new Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin to redesignate Haiti for TPS. Among those who crossed the political aisle to support it were 10 Republicans and Rep. Kevin Kiley, an independent from Rocklin, Calif., who caucuses with Republicans. The measure faces an uphill battle in the Senate.

In an interview with The Times, Kiley said his vote was about common sense and being humane.

“It’s particularly dangerous for people that would be returning where the gangs that are ravaging the country are just lying in wait outside the airport in Port-au-Prince,” he said, referring to the Haitian capital.

And because most won’t return willingly, Kiley added, “really all you’d be doing is removing work authorization from 350,000-some people who are going to mostly remain in the country, who will not be able to work anymore and may end up being more reliant on public assistance in states where they’re eligible.”

At the same time, Kiley said, the TPS system hasn’t worked as intended because most so-called temporary designations drag on.

“The system needs to be reformed,” he said. “But that’s all separate and apart from what we do with the folks who were already given this designation.”

Times staff writer David G. Savage in Washington contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON  — A divided Supreme Court heard arguments Monday on whether the police use of phone tracking data violates the Constitution’s protection against “unreasonable searches.”

Most of the justices sounded wary of barring investigators from obtaining precise location history from Google or cellphone providers if it helps find a murderer or a bank robber.

“I’m trying to figure out why this was bad police work,” Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh told an attorney representing the defendant, Odell Chatrie.

He said a police detective in Virginia was seeking clues to find a bank robber and sought a “geofence warrant” from a judge that told Google to turn over data from phones that were near the bank during the hour of the robbery.

“In the end, he got three names,” Kavanaugh said, including Chatrie, who pleaded guilty. He said these searches have proved to be practical for finding criminals.

But other justices said the court should not rule broadly to endorse digital searches of vast data bases held by private companies.

What about emails or Google photos, asked Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Neil M. Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett.

All three said this information deserves more privacy protection than location data.

In the past, the court has said the 4th Amendment protects against government searches that intrude upon a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” The two sides in this case differ on whether a digital search of location data violates privacy rights.

Gorsuch said he was generally skeptical of broad searches if the government had no particular suspect.

Is it OK to search “all the rooms in a hotel for a gun or all the storage units or all bank deposit boxes for the pearl necklace that has been stolen?” he asked.

Eric Feigin, a deputy solicitor general, said the government probably could not obtain a search warrant for all storage units or hotel rooms, but a Google search is different because it is a software filter.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. proposed a narrow ruling.

Perhaps unwittingly, Chatrie had agreed to have Google store his location history data. Roberts said he could have turned off the public location data, and for that reason, he may have lost his right to appeal.

“If you don’t want the government to have your location history, you just flip that off,” he said.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. agreed. Chatrie “voluntarily disclosed to Google the information about where he was going to be,” he said.

Eight years ago, Roberts wrote an opinion for a 5-4 majority that said investigators needed a search warrant before they could obtain 127 days of cell tower records that helped convict a Michigan man of several store robberies.

Four of the court’s liberal justices joined that majority, but only two of them — Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — remain on the court.

Since then, Kavanaugh, Barrett and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson have joined the court.

The National Assn. of Criminal Defense Lawyers and other civil liberties groups backed Chatrie’s challenge to the government’s use of geofence warrants.

Chatrie had “a reasonable expectation of privacy in his location history given both its sensitive and revealing nature and the fact that it was stored in his password-protected account,” Washington attorney Adam Unikowski told the court. “There was not probable cause to search the virtual private papers of every single person within the geofence merely because of their proximity to the crime.”

Feigin, the Justice Department attorney, said a ruling for Chatrie “would impede the investigation of kidnappings, robberies, shootings and other crimes.”

He agreed, however, that email should be protected because it involves personal communication.

The justices will hand down a ruling in Chatrie vs. U.S. by the end of June.

SACRAMENTO —  Xavier Becerra seems like the type of steady, trustworthy fellow you’d like your daughter to marry. But she’s attracted to a charming party animal.

Then the flashy dude does something really stupid and repulsive. Daughter is jarred into her senses and decides to size up the unexciting but reliable guy.

That’s how I’m seeing the suddenly captivating contest to succeed termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom.

OK, it’s not a perfect analogy. Becerra is 68, been happily married for 37 years and the couple have three grown children. But the principle’s the same: He’s the safe choice. The hot other character merely fooled lots of people for a while.

Becerra is suddenly getting a hard look because the fast-stepping, front-running Democrat Eric Swalwell revealed himself to be totally unworthy of public office.

Five women accused the married Bay Area congressman of sexual misconduct, including rape. He denied the allegations but apologized to his wife for past “mistakes in judgment.” Donors, endorsers, staffers and voters immediately fled his campaign. And he quickly slunk away.

And Becerra surged.

Why?

“People are looking for something stable,” Becerra answered when I asked. “Everybody likes pizzazz and glitter. Then all of a sudden their hero falls from grace. And they look for who they can trust.”

Dan Schnur, who teaches political communications at USC, UC Berkeley and Pepperdine, says: “Democrats had a near-death experience with Swalwell. They don’t seem to be in the mood to take more risks.”

Schnur calls Becerra “this year’s version of Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign.” He’s the safe choice. “Sometimes being ‘none of the above’ is good enough.”

Since Swalwell’s collapse, the once-floundering Becerra has had a meteoric rise in the polls.

A survey conducted for the state Democratic Party showed Becerra rising by 10 points from single digits to tying Tom Steyer, a billionaire hedge fund founder turned climate warrior. Close behind was former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter.

Those three are now the leading Democratic competitors for a slot on the November ballot. The top two vote-getters in the June 2 primary, regardless of party, will advance to the general election.

Republican former Fox News host Steve Hilton was leading the entire field in the poll, followed closely by Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco.

Steyer and Porter are both liberals in their ideology and personalities. Neither are flamethrowers, but they‘re fiery. In contrast, Becerra also is an ideological liberal, but with a low-key demeanor that might cause one to mistake him for a political moderate.

San José Mayor Matt Mahan is clearly a Democratic centrist. But in this era of intense polarization, moderation may be a hard sale. At least, it has been so far for Mahan.

Among those six Democratic and Republican candidates, Becerra boasts by far the most outstanding political resume.

He was U.S. secretary of Health and Human Services under President Biden. Before that as state attorney general, California’s mild-mannered “top cop” showed his aggressiveness by suing the first Trump administration 123 times and winning the vast majority of cases. He also served 12 terms in Congress from Los Angeles and became part of the Democratic leadership. And he served one term in the state Assembly.

That’s an impressive list. But Schnur says Becerra was “the least impressive” candidate in a 90-minute televised debate last week.

“He talked in very vague generalities,” the former political operative says, but adds: “In the middle of the other candidates’ drama and emotional outbursts, he seemed very calm and safe.”

Some pundits and pols have been calling on Becerra to show more fire. But that’s not him. He’s guarded and understated. It’s how he’s wired. If he attempted a personality change, it probably wouldn’t work. There’s a risk of it seeming contrived and phony.

But Becerra should be more specific on issues. Exactly how would he make life better for Californians?

His basic answer when asked how he’d solve a given problem pestering California is essentially: Trust me. I’ll meet with all sides and figure it out.

That’s not just a cop-out. It’s his pragmatic modus operandi.

That reserved style prompted this shot during the debate from Porter, who tends toward specificity:

“Mr. Becerra, you have all these lovely plans. But there are never any numbers, any revenue plan, any details. … The how, the why and how much, it’s all missing.”

Becerra responded with some rare emotion: “That’s very rich to hear from someone who’s never had to actually run a government.” The former Cabinet secretary said he’d balanced four federal HHS budgets that were larger than the California state budget.

I asked Becerra about some issues last week. Here’s partly what he said:

Housing costs: Expedite building by streamlining more regulations. “We’ll continue to have rules, but let’s make them smart rules.”

Gas prices: Keep more refineries from closing. “Let them know they can operate and produce and not lose money. That’s an easy one.”

High-speed rail: ”We’re going to build the bullet train, but not this bullet train. It’s too expensive. Sit everybody down and come out with a position.”

Banning new gas cars by 2035: Is Newsom’s goal realistic? “Seeing what I see, no. We can’t make it by ‘35, but we can make it.”

But let’s be honest. Elections usually turn more on likability than policy positions.

“Decency may be a quality that goes a long way” in the governor’s race, says longtime Democratic strategist Darry Sragow. “In part that’s because of the Swalwell revelations and also because of Trump, who’s not decent. Decency may be what people are looking for.”

But Democrats are riled up by Trump and they’re also demanding backbone and fight.

Many are eyeing Becerra as someone perhaps worth partnering up with. A bit more passion from him could help sustain their interest.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: The congressional landmine stirring fears about the midterm election — and a Trump power grab
Brace yourself: Voter ID controversy headed for California with initiative on November ballot
The L.A. Times Special: How a Trump-endorsed Republican could become California’s next governor

Until next week,
George Skelton

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

WASHINGTON — Reporters assigned to travel aboard Air Force Two were told to prepare for an early morning departure on Tuesday for Islamabad until an unexplained delay — followed by a detour by Vice President JD Vance to the White House — revealed clues that something was wrong.

Iranian diplomats had not yet responded to U.S. proposals intended to form the basis of a new round of talks. Some were questioning whether they would attend at all. Had he departed as planned, Vance risked a humiliation, spending hours flying to Pakistan only to be stood up on arrival.

A crisis meeting at the White House led President Trump to announce an indefinite extension to a ceasefire deadline that had been set as a pressure tactic. Now, unable to bring the Iranians to heel, that pressure was suddenly off.

It was an early lesson for Vance in the many ways high-stakes diplomacy can veer off-course.

“There are obvious risks for Vance,” said Chester Crocker, who served as an assistant secretary of State in the Reagan administration, “being associated with failure or with a dubious deal.”

Trump’s aides are clear on the stakes in negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program and an end to the war. Control of the Strait of Hormuz could determine global oil prices for years. Any final deal will shape whether Americans ultimately conclude the fight was worth it — and could sway the outcome of the midterm elections.

But for America’s lead negotiator, the stakes are also personal.

Vance, a diplomatic novice, has found himself at the helm of an effort rife with political risk that has stymied seasoned diplomats ahead of an anticipated run for president.

The potential payoff is substantial, placing Vance at the center of an international stage with the power to end a historically unpopular war.

But he also may be forced to attach his name to a nuclear deal that provides Tehran access to billions of dollars in sanctions relief, in exchange for limits on its nuclear work that will ultimately expire over time, under conditional monitoring access for international inspectors — an agreement with striking echoes to a 2015 nuclear deal negotiated by a Democratic administration that was disparaged by his party for over a decade.

Vance is negotiating not on his own terms, but on behalf of a mercurial president whose decisions will ultimately determine whether an agreement can be reached. And the Iranians know that Trump’s days in office are numbered, with Vance, a war skeptic, possibly in line to succeed him.

One U.S. official familiar with the negotiations said the vice president is “a pragmatist,” realistic about the prospects of a deal.

“What he has to gain is an image that he can operate effectively on the world stage on a fraught issue. Even if he will give credit to the president, he will be seen as capable of resolving really hard, security-related problems,” said Dennis Ross, a veteran diplomat on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict who served in the George H.W. Bush, Clinton and Obama administrations. “What he has to lose is that he was given the role and did not succeed.”

Failure could raise doubts about his statecraft. But even success at the negotiating table could result in an agreement that turns off Republican voters he may need in a 2028 presidential bid.

“Vance is put in an impossible position,” said Arne Westad, a professor of history at Yale.

“Any deal with the current Iranian regime will be seen as problematic by many Republicans,” Westad said. “If he fails to secure a deal, he will be attacked by those who want an end to the U.S. war — and be seen as ineffective by the president.”

Reputation ‘on the line’

Trump has publicly acknowledged that Vance, a Marine Corps veteran who has consistently opposed U.S. military engagements in the Middle East, had reservations over launching the Iran war in the first place. “He was, I would say, philosophically a little bit different than me,” the president told reporters in March. “I think he was maybe less enthusiastic.”

For that reason, according to Iranian state media reports, Vance was seen by Tehran as their preferred interlocutor in negotiations. Iranian officials expressed gratitude when, during fevered talks ahead of the initial announcement of a ceasefire, they learned that Steve Witkoff, the president’s roving negotiator, had recommended that the vice president be included in the delegation — an exceptional gesture that marked Washington’s highest-level engagement with the Islamic Republic in history.

Republican strategists said Vance’s participation is a demonstration that Trump trusts him, an essential trait for any future Republican presidential nominee and aspiring heir to the MAGA movement.

“It’s rare that a vice president has been put in the position of directly negotiating with a foreign adversary,” said Terry Nelson, a longtime Republican media strategist. “We are engaging a very senior political leader in negotiations with a country that has killed U.S. soldiers and sown chaos in the region. I do think it’s an indication of our resolution and seriousness.”

Whit Ayres, a veteran Republican pollster who has consulted Republican senators and governors for more than three decades, said the vice president’s appointment as lead negotiator “elevates Vance as Trump’s heir-apparent even more than before.”

“Whether that becomes a plus or a minus depends on the outcome of the negotiations,” Ayres added, “and Trump’s ultimate standing with the Republican electorate, both of which are unknowns.”

Talks are currently deadlocked over long-standing demands from Tehran that its leadership has held since the early 2000s, when previously undisclosed nuclear activities first triggered international alarm over Iran’s expanding program.

Iran has periodically accepted temporary limits on its nuclear work — pausing uranium enrichment during talks and, under the 2015 deal, committing to a prolonged cap on enrichment at levels beyond any clear civilian need. But it has always insisted on a “right to enrich” on its own soil, rejecting U.S. attempts to permanently end the program as a foreign attempt to thwart Iran’s scientific progress.

Returning from the first round of ceasefire negotiations, Vance dismissed that position, articulated to him in Islamabad by the speaker of Iran’s Parliament.

“He said, ‘We refuse to give up the right to enrichment,’” Vance said. “And I thought to myself, you know what, my wife has the right to skydive, but she doesn’t jump out of an airplane, because she and I have an agreement that she’s not going to do that, because I don’t want my wife jumping out of an airplane.”

Echoes of a broken deal

The 2015 deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — negotiated by veteran, nonpolitical U.S. diplomats and nuclear scientists over two years of near-constant negotiations — removed roughly 98% of Iran’s nuclear stockpile from the country, while keeping the country’s nuclear infrastructure largely in place, save for the decommissioning of a heavy-water plutonium reactor that could have provided Tehran with a second path to a nuclear bomb.

Under the agreement, Iran consented to limit its use of advanced centrifuges for 10 years, and to restrict uranium enrichment to below weapons-grade levels for 15 years. Inspectors from the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency were granted unprecedented access to monitor the program, though some of these enhanced inspection measures were set to expire after roughly two decades.

In exchange, Iran regained access to tens of billions of dollars of its frozen assets, and settled a long-standing legal dispute with Washington that led the Obama administration to transfer $400 million in cash to Tehran. The episode prompted scandal on the political right, which accused Democrats of fueling terrorism through the funding of Iran’s proxy militias.

Now, after just two weeks of negotiations, the Trump administration is already acknowledging that a final deal with Iran would rely on a familiar formula: temporary caps on Iran’s nuclear work in exchange for substantial sanctions relief. Trump withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018.

Iran comes to the talks with added leverage today, able and willing to disrupt the flow of 20% of the world’s energy through the Strait of Hormuz. And the United States is negotiating alone, without its former partners in the “P5+1” — Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom and Germany — at its side.

Anna Kelly, principal deputy press secretary at the White House, told The Times that “after Democrats like Joe Biden and Barack Hussein Obama weakened our country on the world stage, President Trump has effectively restored American strength with the help of Vice President Vance, who is doing a great job leading the United States in negotiations with Iran.”

“The president and his entire national security team have an incredible track record in making good deals for our country, and the American people can rest assured that the United States will not enter any agreement that does not put our national security interests first,” Kelly said.

Matt Gorman, a longtime Republican strategist and chief communications officer at Targeted Victory, said the JCPOA was viewed particularly critically because it “was negotiated in peacetime.”

“Vance would essentially be ending a war, if successful, and that allows him to make a very different argument,” Gorman said.

The vice president is currently polling as the front-runner for the 2028 Republican presidential nomination, ahead of Marco Rubio, who — despite serving as Trump’s secretary of State and national security advisor — is not directly involved in the Iran talks.

Vance’s role at the negotiating table could help position him as a peacemaker, Crocker noted, distinguishing him from advocates of the war entering the presidential primaries.

But Vance “has been tasked by a president incapable of staying on message, with limited stores of credibility with adversaries as well as allies and a disregard for the complexities of the issues,” said Barbara Bodine, former U.S. ambassador to Yemen. “His task? A credible end to the war without clear objectives.”

“At best, this will be a faux-gilded JCPOA 2.0. Victory will be declared to no applause. On the line is not just Vance’s own reputation, but a demerit in his run for the 2028 presidency,” Bodine added. “The Iran portfolio was no gift.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: How a Trump-endorsed Republican could become California’s next governor
The deep dive: Palisades reservoir that was empty during fire is dry again. Residents aren’t happy about it
The L.A. Times Special: The Flores twins built a drug empire with El Chapo — then betrayed him

More to come,
Michael Wilner
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

April 22 (UPI) — A judge in rural Virginia on Wednesday blocked the results of Tuesday’s state referendum, barring lawmakers, at least temporarily, from implementing a new congressional map that favored Democrats in November’s midterm elections.

The five-page ruling by Judge Jack Hurley of the Tazewell County Circuit Court sided with the Republican National Committee, which was challenging the results of Tuesday’s special election.

On Tuesday, 51.4% of the more than 3 million Virginians who voted approved amending the state’s Constitution to permit a mid-decade congressional district map redraw, according to unofficial results from the Virginia Department of Elections.

The new map is expected to favor Democrats to win 10 of the state’s 11 congressional districts. The Democrats currently hold six of the state’s 11 congressional seats and Republicans hold five.

Hurley agreed with each of the RNC’s claims, including that the legislation supporting the map redraw violated General Assembly rules and that the question voters were asked — “Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General Assembly to temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections” — was “a flagrantly misleading question to the voters, and because the ballot language did not accurately describe the proposed amendment as it was passed by the General Assembly.”

The order declares that all votes from the referendum are “ineffective,” and the state is enjoined from certifying them and instituting the new congressional district map.

“This ruling is a major victory for Virginians,” RNC Chair Joe Gruters said in a statement.

“Democrats attempted to force an unconstitutional scheme to tilt congressional maps in their favor, but the court recognized it for what it is — a blatant power grab.”

Virginia said it will immediately appeal the ruling.

“As I said last night, Virginia voters have spoken, and an activist judge should not have veto power over the people’s vote,” Virginia’s Democratic attorney general, Jay Jones, said in a statement.

“We look forward to defending the outcome of last night’s election in court.”

Virginia Democrats first moved for a mid-decade congressional map redraw in the fall after Texas, under pressure from President Donald Trump, approved a map expected to favor Republicans, kicking off a gerrymandering arms race. Four Republican-led states have approved new maps compared with two Democratic-led states, though several other states under majority leadership of each party are seeking to do likewise.

Trump — who has repeatedly warned Republicans that losing the House in November could lead to his impeachment — has taken several executive actions, including tightening voting regulations, that could affect November’s midterms and that Democrats and critics argue are unlawful measures that could help Republicans maintain their narrow House majority.

He has also repeatedly cast doubt on election legitimacy.

On Wednesday, Trump made unfounded claims that the Virginia referendum was “RIGGED,” citing mail-in voting, a common voting practice that the president has targeted as a vehicle for election fraud, though Trump himself has voted by mail in Florida.

“The Democrats eked out another Crooked Victory,” he said in a statement on his Truth Social media platform before Hurley’s ruling. “Let’s see if the Courts will fix this travesty of ‘Justice.'”

Hurley previously ruled to block the Democrats’ redistricting plan twice, though the Supreme Court of Virginia allowed the referendum to move forward amid litigation.

Democratic-led states California and Virginia pursued their redraws through voter-approved ballot measures, while GOP-led Texas, Missouri, Ohio and North Carolina passed actions through their Republican-controlled state institutions, without voter-approved measures.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that U.S. troops may sue military contractors for their injuries, siding with a soldier who was badly injured when a Taliban operative working at the Bagram Airfield detonated a suicide bomb.

Five soldiers were killed and 17 were wounded, including 20-year-old Winston Henceley, who suffered a fractured skull and brain injuries and is permanently disabled.

In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled that neither federal law nor the Constitution shields military contractors if their mistakes or negligence result in solders being injured in a combat zone.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the court’s opinion for an unusual majority that included Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil M. Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

In the past, Thomas has objected to court precedents that prevented troops from suing the U.S. government for their injuries, including from medical practice.

And he said that rule should not be expanded to shield military contractors.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented, along with Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.

“Because the Constitution gives the federal government exclusive authority over foreign affairs and the conduct of wars, federal law preempts all state law that substantially interferes with the Government’s exercise of those powers,” Alito wrote.

Hencely had tried to stop and question Ahmad Nayeb, an Afghan employee, as he walked toward soldiers who had gathered for a Veteran’s Day 5K race in 2016.

The Army concluded that Hencely’s intervention “likely prevented a far greater tragedy,” and its investigation concluded that the Fluor Corporation that had a contract to run operations at the base was primarily responsible for the attack.

The report said Fluor was negligent in hiring an Afghan who had been a Taliban operative, and it failed to closely supervise him.

But Henceley sued Fluor for his injuries; a federal judge in South Carolina and the 4th Circuit threw out his suit.

“During wartime, where a private service contractor is integrated into combatant activities over which the military retains command authority, a tort claim arising out of the contractor’s engagement in such activities shall be preempted,” the 4th Circuit said.

The court agreed to hear his appeal and overturn the 4th Circuit, clearing his suit to proceed.

April 22 (UPI) — Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell‘s term is nearing its end and President Donald Trump is pushing for his replacement but an investigation into Powell may hold up the appointment of a new chair.

The Justice Department opened an investigation into Powell over the renovation of the Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building in Washington, D.C., which Trump claims has exceeded $3 billion. The renovation was not the beginning of Trump’s feud with Powell but it has added to his effort to oust the chairman before the end of his term.

Powell’s term as chairman of the Federal Reserve will end in May but he will remain on the Board of Governors until January 2028.

Typically when a Fed chair’s term ends, they resign. However, Powell said he plans to stay put until a replacement is appointed.

At least one lawmaker, Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said he would not vote on a new chairman until the investigation into Powell is over.

The Justice Department alleges that Powell made false or misleading statements to Congress about the cost of the renovation project at the Federal Reserve headquarters during his testimony to the House Committee on Financial Services in June.

Powell’s testimony was part of his semiannual report to Congress on monetary policy.

Following the hearing, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., submitted a request to then-Attorney General Pam Bondi for Powell to be investigated for perjury and making false statements. Luna said that Powell denied there would be “luxury features” included in the renovations, including a “VIP dining room, premium marble, water features and a roof terrace garden.”

Luna added that Powell “falsely claimed that the Eccles building ‘never had’ a serious renovation.” She notes that the building underwent renovations in 1999 and 2003.

“These are not minor misstatements,” Luna said. “Chairman Powell knowingly misled both Congress and executive branch officials about the true nature of a taxpayer-funded project. Lying under oath is a serious offense — especially from someone tasked with overseeing our monetary system and public trust.”

No charges have been formally filed against Powell. The challenge the Justice Department faces in convicting Powell of perjury or false statements is in proving that he willfully, knowingly made statements he knew to be false at the time.

Powell, who was Trump’s nominee for chairman in 2017, has said that the investigation into him and the Federal Reserve renovation is “pretext” to punish him for not following Trump’s direction to lower interest rates.

“No one, certainly not the chair of the Federal Reserve, is above the law, but this unprecedented action should be seen in the broader context of the administration’s threats and ongoing pressure,” Powell said in a video message in January. “This is about whether the Feed will be able to continue to set interest rates based on evidence and economic conditions — or whether instead monetary policy will be directed by political pressure or intimidation.”

Last month, federal prosecutor George A. Massucco-LaTaif told Chief U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg that the Justice Department does not know of any evidence that a crime has been committed in the Federal Reserve renovation project.

“We do not know at this time,” Massucco-LaTaif said. “However, there are 1.2 billion reasons for us to look into it.”

The fissure between Powell and Trump began and has continued over the Federal Reserve’s decision to maintain elevated interest rates in response to inflation. Trump has repeatedly called on the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates, saying the United States should “have the lowest interest rate in the world.”

All along the Federal Reserve continues to hold an elevated interest rate, currently between 3.5% and 3.75%, in an effort to tame inflation. Its target rate of inflation is 2% on an annual basis.

Economic markers from the U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics show the rate of inflation remains at about 3%.

Trump has nominated Kevin Warsh to succeed Powell. Warsh served on the Fed’s board for five years after being appointed by President George W. Bush in 2006.

“I have known Kevin for a long period of time, and have no doubt that he will go down as one of the great Fed chairmen, maybe the best,” Trump posted on social media in January. “On top of everything else, he is ‘central casting,’ and he will never let you down.”

Warsh faced his first hearing on the path toward confirmation on Tuesday when he testified before the Senate Banking Committee. Questions by senators centered on the Federal Reserve’s independence, something Trump’s influence has called into question.

If appointed, Warsh would be the wealthiest person to lead the Federal Reserve.

Presidents have butted heads with the Federal Reserve throughout its history, as monetary policy can reflect on how the U.S. population views the president’s performance. A president has never tried to fire the chairman of the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve is a non-partisan, independent agency made up of a board of governors posted in Washington, D.C., and 12 regional banks located across the United States.

Independence is key to the Federal Reserve’s function, keeping it from choosing policy based on the political goals of those occupying the White House and other branches of government.

Trump has not attempted to fire Powell yet but he did attempt to fire Fed board Gov. Lisa Cook. The attempt was unsuccessful as the U.S. Supreme Court intervened in October and ruled that she can remain at her post on an interim basis, at least for 2026.

The president does have some authority over choosing or designating a new Federal Reserve chair, Peter Shane, a constitutional law scholar in residence at NYU Law School, told UPI. However, a president must demonstrate a good reason for doing so.

There are two mechanisms in place that are meant to protect the independence of the Federal Reserve and its chair from political influence.

First, there is Supreme Court precedent. In 1935, the high court made a ruling in the landmark case Humphrey’s Executor vs. the United States. In this case, the court ruled that President Franklin D. Roosevelt could not fire the commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission, another independent agency, without cause.

The ruling affirmed that the authority to remove the head of any independent agency falls to Congress.

Second, there is the Federal Reserve Act. President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 to decentralize the control over monetary policy in the United States. This established the Federal Reserve and set its independence as a foundational feature of its existence.

The Federal Reserve Act makes the Federal Reserve independent in setting monetary policy without the influence of the president or Congress.

Congress has the ability to change the Federal Reserve Act. It did so in 1977 with the Federal Reserve Reform Act.

This amendment, signed into law by President Jimmy Carter, codified the objectives of the agency and established a requirement for the board of governors to report to Congress in hearings twice a year. It also added the requirement of Senate confirmation hearings for the chairman and vice chairman of the board of governors.

Last year, Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., introduced the Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act, calling for the board of governors of the Federal Reserve and all Federal Reserve banks to be abolished.

“Americans have suffered under crippling inflation and the Federal Reserve is to blame,” Massie said in a statement.

Since being introduced in March 2025 the bill has not progressed beyond being referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.

April 22 (UPI) — A U.S. appeals court has ruled that Texas can require schools to display a copy of the Ten Commandments, finding the legislation that mandates the Decalogue in classrooms does not require students to believe in the religious teachings.

The Tuesday ruling from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is a victory for Texas conservatives and Christians who have fought to further include religion in public spaces. The decision is expected to be appealed to the Supreme Court.

“This is a major victory for Texas and our moral values,” the state’s Republican attorney general, Ken Paxton, said in a statement.

“The Ten Commandments have had a profound impact on our nation, and it’s important that students learn from them every single day.”

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed Senate Bill 10 into law June 10, directing every classroom in all Texas public schools to display the Ten Commandments starting Sept. 1, but has been tied up in litigation since.

While proponents argue the Decalogue is foundational to American life, opponents state that mandating it in schools is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of church and state.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which represented multi-faith Texas families in the case, said it was “extremely disappointed” by the decision and expects the Supreme Court to reverse it.

“The court’s ruling goes against fundamental First Amendment principles and binding U.S. Supreme Court authority,” the ACLU of Texas said in a statement.

“The First Amendment safeguards the separation of church and state, and the freedom of families to choose how, when and if to provide their children with religious instruction. This decision tramples those rights.”

The appeals court on Tuesday ruled 9-7 to overturn a lower court’s preliminary injunction that found S.B. 10 likely unconstitutional.

In its ruling, the appeals court found S.B. 10 “looks nothing like a historical religious establishment.”

“S.B. 10 authorizes no religious instruction and gives teachers no license to contradict children’s religious beliefs (or their parents’). No child is made to recite the Commandments, believe them or affirm their divine origin,” the court said.

WASHINGTON, April 22 (UPI) — The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday whether immigration officers can place permanent residents charged with a crime on parole if they leave and then re-enter the country.

In immigration, parole is a temporary, discretionary permission granted by the Department of Homeland Security that allows a person to enter or remain in the United States, even though they are not formally admitted.

Parole does not cancel a person’s green card, but essentially gives the Department of Homeland Security time to decide whether the person should be admitted or deported based on how the issue is resolved.

The court is poised to hear oral arguments in Blanche vs. Lau, which would determine when immigration officers can demote a permanent resident’s status to parole, a temporary status that can be revoked and result in deportation.

Lau is Chinese immigrant Muk Lau, a permanent resident with a green card. Blanche is Todd Blanche, the acting U.S. attorney general and named defendant in the case.

Typically, permanent residents are allowed to leave and re-enter the United States as they wish, with a few exceptions. If these immigrants have committed certain kinds of crimes, for example, officers can have them placed on parole when they return to the country after going abroad.

The case stems from an event on June 15, 2012, when 69-year-old Lau, who had gained permanent residency five years earlier, landed in a New York-area airport after traveling to China.

He presented his green card and passport to border control. His entry triggered an FBI match because a month earlier, Lau was charged with third-degree trademark counterfeiting for selling nearly $300,000 of fake designer shorts.

“I was arrested at a warehouse that contained some merchandise I had stored there,” Lau told the Customs and Border Protection agent, according to court documents. “I went to the warehouse to retrieve the merchandise because I had not paid rent, and when I got there, the cops were there and arrested me.”

The agent declared Lau inadmissible as a returning permanent resident due to the crime exception, and decided to let him in on parole, instead. A year later, Lau pled guilty to the counterfeiting, and in 2014, the Department of Homeland Security began deportation proceedings against him.

At the time, the Customs and Border Patrol agent did not know whether Lau was guilty — just that he had been charged with a crime. The crux of Lau’s case is whether the CBP agent needed “clear and convincing” evidence of a crime when placing him on parole or whether just charges were enough without such evidence.

Immigrant advocates argue the agent erred.

“Mr. Lau was absolutely, unequivocally, at that time, admissible,” said Jonathan Weinberg, who worked on the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s brief to the court. “He just was. He hadn’t been convicted of a crime. There was nothing else that would render him inadmissible.”

After an immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals sided with the government, Lau appealed to the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. The appellate court, agreeing with Weinberg’s reasoning, granted Lau’s petition in March 2025.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform, a nonprofit advocating for lower immigration rates, also submitted a brief to the court. It argued that the border patrol officer did the right thing by paroling Lau into the country, and that the clear and convincing standard was too high.

“If you’re going to say that the officer in an airport is supposed to have all this information, you’re assigning that individual with an impossible task,” FAIR spokesman Ira Mehlman said. “You have thousands of people coming through the airports every day, and these are decisions that have to be made on the spot.”

Mehlman also said that the decision “shouldn’t be a problem” for green-card holders without any criminal history.

“When you come to the United States as a non-citizen, you are here on a conditional basis,” Mehlman said. “Even if you’re a green card holder, you’re subject to removal if you violate the terms of your presence here in the United States.”

There are nearly 13 million legal permanent residents in the United States. Legal immigrants, including green card holders, commit crimes at lower rates than natural-born citizens, according to research by the Migration Policy Institute. However, Weinberg said the ultimate decision would impact all legal permanent residents, including those who have not been convicted of any crime.

“If the government can admit Lau on parole, then the government can basically admit any returning green card holder on parole if it chooses to,” Weinberg said.

Lau’s case joins several immigration-related issues, including birthright citizenship and temporary protected status, which have made their way to the Supreme Court this spring.

“The immigrant advocacy community is, I think, fighting an uphill battle,” Weinberg said. “But that doesn’t mean you don’t give it your best shot.”

April 21 (UPI) — Voters are heading to the polls in Virginia on Tuesday to vote on a new congressional map drawn by state lawmakers.

Polls are open until 7 p.m. EST., with nearly 1.4 million early ballots already cast on a constitutional amendment to change the congressional map. The result of Tuesday’s vote could have significant implications for the midterm elections in November.

If the map, drawn by Democratic lawmakers, is approved by voters, Democrats would be favored to win 10 of the state’s 11 congressional districts. Democrats currently hold six of the state’s 11 congressional seats and Republicans hold five.

Virginia is just the latest state to weigh redrawing its congressional map mid-decade after Texas approved a map that will favor Republicans last year. Four Republican-led states have approved new congressional maps.

Democrats and Republicans outside of the state have lent their voices to campaigns for and against Virginia’s redistricting plan. President Donald Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., voiced their opposition to the plan, with Trump calling it “unfair.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., has joined Virginia lawmakers Sen. Mark Warner and Sen. Tim Kaine at rallies to support redistricting. Former President Barack Obama has also been involved, appearing in ad campaigns calling on voters to vote “yes.”

“We’re giving Virginians a chance to vote — which Republican states have not done — about whether they want to have a congressional delegation that will stand up against Donald Trump’s tyranny if he tries to interfere with our elections,” Kaine said in an appearance on Fox News on Sunday.

The Virginia Supreme Court allowed Tuesday’s election to move forward but may still weigh in on whether the new congressional map is legal or not.

SACRAMENTO — California Democrats caught a huge break with Eric Swalwell’s sexual assault scandal. It surfaced in early spring rather than midsummer.

Just think of the Democratic debacle that could have occurred.

What if the accusations of sexual misconduct, including alleged rape, had come to light after the gubernatorial candidate had triumphed in the June 2 primary and qualified for the November ballot?

Under California law, it would have been impossible to remove him from the ballot and insert a Democratic replacement.

“It would have been pretty devastating,” notes Assemblywoman Gail Pellerin (D-Santa Cruz), who heads the Assembly Elections Committee.

“It has given us a lot to think about.”

There’s a glaring flaw in California’s election system that should be fixed for the future. But exactly how is trickier than it might seem.

Here’s what I’m talking about:

Prior to April 10 — doomsday for Swalwell — the then-congressman from the East San Francisco Bay was leading the large field of Democratic candidates for governor. Just barely. But he was starting to pull away, based on polling and endorsements.

A survey conducted by the independent Public Policy Institute of California just before Swalwell’s accusers went public showed him leading all candidates — Democrats and Republicans — with 18% support among likely voters.

He was closely trailed by Republican Steve Hilton, a former Fox News host, with 17%. Another Republican and a Democrat — Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer respectively — were tied for third at 14% each. Democratic former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter followed at 10%.

You can now toss all those numbers in the trash. But the point is that Swalwell was headed for victory in the primary. His next stop was the governor’s mansion because no Republican has won a statewide race in California in two decades.

The Democratic front-runner was raking in endorsements from interest groups and democratic politicians. He was considered the safest bet in a generally unimpressive field, a regular middle-class guy — and a white male, the only ethnicity and gender that has ever been elected governor in California.

Former state Controller Betty Yee, a Democratic darkhorse candidate for governor, was pretty much on target when she observed after Swalwell’s campaign collapsed:

“The obsession with who looks the part [of governor] almost got us an alleged sexual predator in Sacramento — ignoring the reality we need to actually fix our fraught state.”

But what if the victims of Swalwell’s alleged sexual improprieties — five women at last count — had waited a few more months to go public? And that’s conceivable. After all, they had remained silent for years. Apparently the nightmare of their alleged assailant becoming governor inspired them to talk now.

Although Swalwell quickly dropped out of the race, there’s no way to erase his name from the primary ballot. But at least voters can choose among seven other “major” Democratic contenders.

If he had already won in the top-two primary, however, and a Republican had also qualified for the November ballot, Democratic voters would have been left high and dry.

Presumably no sane person, no matter how partisan, would vote to elect an alleged rapist as governor. But the only other choice would have been a Republican lackey of President Trump. He’d undoubtedly win by default in a landslide.

“If Democrats had been stupid enough to nominate Swalwell, they’d have been stuck with him,” says Tony Quinn, a Republican elections analyst.

“Even dying doesn’t get you off the ballot. You don’t want to be the party nominee? So what, you are.”

No write-in candidacies are allowed in California’s general elections, although they are in the primary. That’s an inexplicable flaw.

“I’ve thought for years there should be a write-in option to deal with such a problem,” says UCLA law professor Rick Hasen, an expert on elections law.

Also, he points out, California’s top-two primary system — which advances only the top two vote-getters regardless of party — “cuts out minor parties from being relevant. You ought to be able to write in a minor party candidate.”

One reason a candidate can’t be removed from the ballot, election officials claim, is that tens of millions ballots have to be printed early enough to mail to every registered voter one month before election day.

Nonsense. In this era of rapidly expanding technology, you’d think that dilemma could be resolved even within snail-paced government bureaucracies. If nothing else, mail out a supplemental ballot just for the governor’s race.

But a bigger question is exactly who would choose the replacement for a departed candidate.

In a presidential election, the party hierarchy — a convention or national committee — would choose another nominee.

But there are no party nominees in California’s top-two open primary system. Parties don’t choose candidates for the November election. Voters regardless of their party do. So, in Swalwell’s case, the Democratic Party alone wouldn’t be entitled to select his substitute — unless the law were changed.

Or, perhaps the No. 3 vote-getter in the primary could automatically be elevated to the general election. We then could wind up with two candidates from the same party. But at least there’d be a better choice than an alleged sexual predator.

“I kind of miss those days” when parties nominated, says Pellerin, who was Santa Cruz County’s chief elections official for 27 years. “It’s something I’ve been thinking about — whether this is the best primary system.”

As I recently wrote, my vote would be to junk the top-two system and return to pre-”reform” party-nominating primaries.

Advocates of the top two primary — including myself — thought it would produce more centrist officeholders. It really hasn’t. It has just caused additional problems — like occasionally sending two candidates of the same party to the November runoff.

Meanwhile, all California voters should be grateful that Swalwell’s accusers courageously went public in April, not August.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Swalwell supporters scramble after he drops out of governor’s race. Who will benefit?
California love: Californians are pouring money into Democrats’ Senate races in other states
The L.A. Times Special: There’s a wide gap between rumor and fact. That’s where Eric Swalwell lurked

Until next week,
George Skelton

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

April 19 (UPI) — U.S. Customs and Border Protection is expected to launch a website on Monday to process refund requests for some Trump administration tariffs, although there are limits to which ones will be processed.

The first phase of tariff refunds comes after the Supreme Court ruled in February that President Donald Trump could not use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to generate revenue by imposing tariffs.

Although Trump decided to use Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to justify new tariffs after the Court’s decision, the administration still is required to refund duties collected under the now-nullified tariffs.

CBP has estimated that it owes about $166 billion in refunds, with the agency’s announcement of phase 1 expected to take care of the vast majority of expected claims, NPR reported.

The website is specifically aimed at letting businesses request refunds, and experts have said that consumers are unlikely to be affected by the refunds, CBS News reported.

“[The Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries] is being deployed in phases, and CBP will launch the first phase of CAPE on April 20,” the agency said in an update last week.

“Phase 1 is limited to certain unliquidated entries and certain entries within 80 days of liquidation,” the agency said.

The refunds are linked to lawsuits filed in December by Costco and other companies — more than 50 companies brought filed suit for refunds — asking for duties to be returned to them if the Supreme Court ruled against the administration.

In March, CBP raised concern in court that it could not immediately handle refunding the duties based on 53 million entries from 330,000 importers who had paid tariffs as of March 4.

WASHINGTON  — A man carrying a gun and a cellphone entered a federal credit union in a small town in central Virginia in May 2019 and demanded cash.

He left with $195,000 in a bag and no clue to his identity. But his smartphone was keeping track of him.

What happened next could yield a landmark ruling from the Supreme Court on the 4th Amendment and its restrictions against “unreasonable searches.”

Typically, police use tips or leads to find suspects, then seek a search warrant from a judge to enter a house or other private area to seize the evidence that can prove a crime.

Civil libertarians say the new “digital dragnets” work in reverse.

“It’s grab the data and search first. Suspicion later. That’s opposite of how our system has worked, and it’s really dangerous,” said Jake Laperruque, an attorney for the Center for Democracy & Technology.

But these new data scans can be effective in finding criminals.

Lacking leads in the Virginia bank robbery, a police detective turned to what one judge in the case called a “groundbreaking investigative tool … enabling the relentless collection of eerily precise location data.”

Cellphones can be tracked through towers, and Google stored this location history data for hundreds of millions of users. The detective sent Google a demand for information known as a “geofence warrant,” referring to a virtual fence around a particular geographic area at a specific time.

The officer sought phones that were within 150 yards of the bank during the hour of the robbery. He used that data to locate Okello Chatrie, then obtained a search warrant of his home where the cash and the holdup notes were found.

Chatrie entered a conditional guilty plea, but the Supreme Court will hear his appeal on April 27.

The justices agreed to decide whether geofence warrants violate the 4th Amendment.

The outcome may go beyond location tracking. At issue more broadly is the legal status of the vast amount of privately stored data that can be easily scanned.

This may include words or phrases found in Google searches or in emails. For example, investigators may want to know who searched for a particular address in the weeks before an arson or a murder took place there or who searched for information on making a particular type of bomb.

Judges are deeply divided on how this fits with the 4th Amendment.

Two years ago, the conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans ruled “geofence warrants are general warrants categorically prohibited by the 4th Amendment.”

Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the court’s liberals in a 4th Amendment privacy case in 2018.

(Alex Wong / Getty Images)

Historians of the 4th Amendment say the constitutional ban on “unreasonable searches and seizures” arose from the anger in the American colonies over British officers using general warrants to search homes and stores even when they had no reason to suspect any particular person of wrongdoing.

The National Assn. of Criminal Defense Lawyers relies on that contention in opposing geofence warrants.

Its lawyers argued the government obtained Chatrie’s “private location information … with an unconstitutional general warrant that compelled Google to conduct a fishing expedition through millions of Google accounts, without any basis for believing that any one of them would contain incriminating evidence.”

Meanwhile, the more liberal 4th Circuit in Virginia divided 7-7 to reject Chatrie’s appeal. Several judges explained the law was not clear, and the police officer had done nothing wrong.

“There was no search here,” Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson wrote in a concurring opinion that defended the use of this tracking data.

He pointed to Supreme Court rulings in the 1970s declaring that check records held by a bank or dialing records held by a phone company were not private and could be searched by investigators without a warrant.

Chatrie had agreed to having his location records held by Google. If financial records for several months are not private, the judge wrote, “surely this request for a two-hour snapshot of one’s public movements” is not private either.

Google changed its policy in 2023 and no longer stores location history data for all of its users. But cellphone carriers continue to receive warrants that seek tracking data.

Wilkinson, a prominent conservative from the Reagan era, also argued it would be a mistake for the courts to “frustrate law enforcement’s ability to keep pace with tech-savvy criminals” or cause “more cold cases to go unsolved. Think of a murder where the culprit leaves behind his encrypted phone and nothing else. No fingerprints, no witnesses, no murder weapon. But because the killer allowed Google to track his location, a geofence warrant can crack the case,” he wrote.

Judges in Los Angeles upheld the use of a geofence warrant to find and convict two men for a robbery and murder in a bank parking lot in Paramount.

The victim, Adbadalla Thabet, collected cash from gas stations in Downey, Bellflower, Compton and Lynwood early in the morning before driving to the bank.

After he was robbed and shot, a Los Angeles County sheriff’s detective found video surveillance that showed he had been followed by two cars whose license plates could not be seen.

The detective then sought a geofence warrant from a Superior Court judge that asked Google for location data for six designated spots on the morning of the murder.

That led to the identification of Daniel Meza and Walter Meneses, who pleaded guilty to the crimes. A California Court of Appeal rejected their 4th Amendment claim in 2023, even though the judges said they had legal doubts about the “novelty of the particular surveillance technique at issue.”

The Supreme Court has also been split on how to apply the 4th Amendment to new types of surveillance.

By a 5-4 vote, the court in 2018 ruled the FBI should have obtained a search warrant before it required a cellphone company to turn over 127 days of records for Timothy Carpenter, a suspect in a series of store robberies in Michigan.

The data confirmed Carpenter was nearby when four of the stores were robbed.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, joined by four liberal justices, said this lengthy surveillance violated privacy rights protected by the 4th Amendment.

The “seismic shifts in technology” could permit total surveillance of the public, Roberts wrote, and “we decline to grant the state unrestricted access” to these databases.

But he described the Carpenter decision as “narrow” because it turned on the many weeks of surveillance data.

In dissent, four conservatives questioned how tracking someone’s driving violates their privacy. Surveillance cameras and license plate readers are commonly used by investigators and have rarely been challenged.

Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer relies on that argument in his defense of Chatrie’s conviction. “An individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in movements that anyone could see,” he wrote.

The justices will issue a decision by the end of June.

April 17 (UPI) — The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Chevron in a case related to damage to wetlands in Louisiana that dates to World War II.

The case was brought more than a decade ago and relates to damage allegedly done when Chevron’s corporate predecessors were refining aviation gas on behalf of the federal government during the war, Scotusblog and The Washington Post reported.

The 8-0 ruling sent the federal lawsuit back to a lower court in a move that could jeopardize a $745 million ruling against the company to restore the wetlands, as well as other similar cases with fossil fuel companies before courts in the United States.

Parishes in Louisiana filed the case with the help of state officials against oil and gas companies refining crude oil along the coast during the war, claiming that proper permits were never obtained for their work and that they had not followed “prudent industry practices.”

The previous decision on the $745 million ruling was made by a state court, which Chevron contended does not have the jurisdiction to rule because it was working under the auspices of the federal government.

After the state court judgement was handed down, the company’s lawyers asked the U.S. Supreme Court to move the case to a federal court, where it may be able to have the ruling thrown out.

April 16 (UPI) — The House on Thursday passed a bill to extend temporary protected status for people from Haiti who are living in the United States through 2029.

Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., who is co-chair of the House Haiti Caucus, introduced a discharge petition to advance a bill to extend protection for Haitian nationals.

The legislation was initially introduced by Rep. Laura Gillen, D-N.Y., whose Long Island district — as well as the rest of Long Island and New York City — have large Haitian populations, and is the first bill she introduced after her election to the House.

After the discharge petition succeeded, with bipartisan support, the bill passed the full House with 10 Republicans voting in support of it.

“This is a critical step forward in our fight for immigrant justice and delivering our Haitian neighbors the protections they deserve — and it’s a testament to the strength of our broad, diverse and bipartisan coalition,” Pressley said in a statement after the motion to discharge was agreed to.

“I am grateful to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who supported our discharge petition,” she said.

After the vote, Gillen in a statement encouraged the Senate “to take up this measure and show the compassion and good sense to protect our Haitian community members.”

“Not only would this threaten the lives of our neighbors, it would also have a devastating effect on our economy,” Gillen said, noting that the extension protects “law-abiding and tax-paying Haitians who would face horrific condition if forced back to Haiti.”

The bill, however, faces a battle in the Republican-run Senate and, if it does get passed, the White House has indicated that it will veto the legislation, reports have said.

Although former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had attempted to end TPS for at least half a million Haitians last Fall, a judge in February blocked the Trump administration from carrying it out.

As a result of the ruling, TPS for people from Haiti expired on Feb. 3, its original expiration date, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which Pressley said made the discharge petition to force a vote on the bill so crucial.

The Supreme Court also is due to rule on the Trump administrations efforts to end TPS for Haitians, as well as for people from Syria, who have protected status because of the dangerous situation in that country.

April 16 (UPI) — Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has delayed a special session he called for the state legislature to work on redrawing the state’s U.S. congressional districts.

The session was scheduled to take place next week, but DeSantis said Wednesday it would now happen on April 28 to give the governor’s office more time to work on its proposal, The New York Times reported.

He also called legislators back to work to vote on a bill to give parents more freedom to opt out of giving their children school-mandated vaccines and one to protect minors from artificial intelligence, Politico reported. DeSantis called on lawmakers to return to Tallahassee from April 28 to May 1.

DeSantis issued a proclamation in January calling for the special session to reconsider the state’s congressional map.

“Every Florida resident deserves to be represented fairly and constitutionally,” he said at the time.

DeSantis said the redistricting would better ensure that race was not a predominant factor in determining congressional districts. He referenced a Supreme Court case in which Louisiana lawmakers were accused of creating a congressional district comprising mostly racial minorities.

Florida has 28 seats in the U.S. House, gaining one in 2022 after the 2020 census. Republicans hold 20 seats and Democrats have 8.

It seems like a simple ask that male politicians don’t sexually harass or even rape women, but also, it seems like an open secret in Congress that sexual misconduct is too common.

Take Eric Swalwell, whose epic political immolation has captivated this week’s national political news, including a TMZ-obtained video of the then-congressman bleary-eyed in a bathrobe on a yacht that was literally the least-worst revelation.

For years “there were swirling rumors about Eric,” former Rep. Jackie Speier told me. Speier in 2018 thought she’d put in place tough new rules to stop sexual misconduct among her former colleagues, and the type of backroom shrugs that allowed men to prowl unchecked.

But despite her efforts, Speier, who represented a part of the Bay Area near Swalwell’s district until 2023, said the problem remains Congress itself, and the “crippling” power that elected officials have over their staffs. Don’t get her started on how that power imbalance is even worse for young lobbyists.

“I’ve always said that Congress is Hollywood for ugly people,” she said. “It’s a whole environment that becomes, I think, toxic.”

But also one that, she added, isn’t inevitable.

The 2018 change

In 2017, the #MeToo movement had swept into the public consciousness and ignited calls for change.

Armed with that outrage and the roiling fire of public opinion, Speier set out to change archaic rules that governed how sexual misconduct was handled in Congress.

“I’ll just run through what it was like,” she told me. “If you wanted to file a complaint, you had to be prepared to go through some period of counseling; to have a cooling off period; to participate in mandatory mediation; and sign an NDA, and then the taxpayers picked up the tab if there was a settlement. It was kind of jaw dropping to think that that was the policy.”

It wasn’t just policy, it was culture. Speier herself had been the victim of an assault when she was a young staffer — a senior staffer pushing her against a wall and forcibly kissing her. And like so many women, she put the episode aside and went on with her career because speaking out would have likely brought her more grief than justice.

But by 2017, she realized the public was at a “tipping point,” and, as she said then, “Congress has been a breeding ground for a hostile work environment for far too long.”

With Rep. Bradley Byrne, a Republican from Alabama, they passed the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 Reform Act.

It did away with the weird and coercive requirement for counseling and a cooling off period and most significantly, forced sexual harassers to pay for their own settlements instead of pinning the cost on taxpayers.

But even with the new rules, some colleagues didn’t seem to get it. Speier recalled one man who, informed of possibility he would have to pay sexual harassment settlements out of his own pocket, asked if he could purchase insurance to cover those costs.

“How about you keep your zipper up?” Speier wondered.

The bigger problem

Still, Speier said she thought the law made a difference not just in how claims of misconduct were handled, but in the culture of Capitol Hill.

But, “over time it just was relaxed,” she said.

When Speier left office in 2023, Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) was under investigation for sexual harassment — a claim Congress deemed unfounded, but bounced Santos from its ranks for a bunch of other misconduct.

Let’s be real — Congress has never been without scandal.

But Speier said that doesn’t mean sexual abuse can’t be stopped. She just thinks the rules she put in place need to be even tougher: A zero-tolerance approach similar to what corporate America often enforces.

“I’m thinking now that the way to fix this may be something more direct and straightforward and simple, much like they do in the private sector,” she said.

“When the CEO is having an affair with a subordinate and it becomes known, he’s history. He’s relieved of his duties, and if we made it clear that if you sexually harass a staff member, or you have an affair with a staff member, you will be expelled, or you will be subject to expulsion of Congress, that will change their behavior.”

I love her enthusiasm and I support tossing out miscreant members, but I’m not sure even that will keep the zippers up. But there is always hope.

And something has to be done.

“These cases underscore the fact that these women do not feel comfortable coming forward,” she pointed out. “So we’ve got to figure out why and close that hole.

“Is it because they’re fearful that they’ll be retaliated against or that they’ll be ostracized or blackballed? I don’t know the answer, but I’m really urging my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to fix this, and part of fixing it is talking to these women who were, in fact, sexually harassed and assaulted and find out why they didn’t feel comfortable coming forward.”

That’s the real issue, and the real demand we should be making. From the Oval Office to district offices, too many elected leaders have proven they’ll use their power to obtain sex — by coercion or even force.

And too many women remain afraid to speak out because they still suffer both career and social consequences — a realistic fear that coming forward could end their own ambitions, or at least leave them battling to not be defined by the abuse.

Yes, Swalwell and others have been shamed into resigning.

But it’s past time to make sexual abuse a one-strike-you’re-out offense — for the perpetrator, not the survivor.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Swalwell supporters scramble after he drops out of governor’s race. Who will benefit?
The deep dive: ‘Rebuilding After Fires, L.A. Neighbors Join Forces and Innovate
The L.A. Times Special: In L.A. County, many homeless people enter shelters, only to end up back on the streets

Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

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