13 cities join federal lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's immigration enforcement tactics
Los Angeles City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto made the announcement Friday morning at a news conference. She said her office is amending the complaint and adding 13 cities representing four counties.
The lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Public Counsel and other immigration and civil rights attorneys, claiming that federal agents were violating the Constitution by arresting people solely based on their skin color, performing raids without warrants and denying legal counsel to detainees.
Los Angeles city and county, along with seven other cities, including Culver City, Montebello, Monterey Park, Pasadena, Pico Rivera, Santa Monica and West Hollywood, joined the initial lawsuit.
The new cities joining the lawsuit are: Long Beach, Pomona, South Gate, Lynwood, Huntington Park, Paramount, Bell Gardens, Beverly Hills, Anaheim, Santa Ana, City of Santa Barbara, Carpinteria, and Oxnard.
"We will always stand up to protect our communities and to uphold the rule of law," Feldstein Soto said. "Thank you to our growing coalition representing multiple jurisdictions across southern California."
CBS Los Angeles reached out to the White House for a comment on the matter and is waiting for a response.
Several mayors from the cities joining the lawsuit said they are proud to be joining the coalition of other local leaders.
"Our decision to intervene in this lawsuit is about standing up for civil rights. No one in our community should be subjected to unlawful treatment or targeted based on race or ethnicity. We believe in due process, fairness, and the responsibility to hold all levels of government accountable when those principles are lost," said Mayor Peggy Lemons, City of Paramount.
On July 11, a lower court judge ordered to temporarily halt immigrations raids saying, federal agents couldn't "rely solely" on certain factors when considering whether to make a "detentive stop," including the "apparent race or ethnicity" of the person in question, whether they are "speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent," and their "presence at a particular location (e.g. bus stop, car wash, tow yard, day laborer pick up site, agricultural site, etc.)."
On Aug. 1, a panel of judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit largely denied the Trump administration's request to suspend the lower court's ruling.
In a statement to CBS News regarding the decision from the Court of Appeals, Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in part:
"What makes someone a target of ICE is if they are illegally in the U.S.—NOT their skin color, race, or ethnicity," she said. "America's brave men and women are removing murderers, MS-13 gang members, pedophiles, rapists—truly the worst of the worst from Golden State communities. 70% of ICE arrests are of criminal illegal aliens who have been convicted or have pending charges. President Trump and Secretary (Kristi) Noem are putting the American people first by removing illegal aliens who pose a threat to our communities. Law and order will prevail."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Commentary: Trump is reviving crony capitalism
If you're a CEO aiming to do business in the Trump era, set aside a slush fund for paying tribute to the Decider-in-Chief. Okay, so maybe they're not bribes, exactly. But Trump is essentially extorting certain companies to get things he wants from them. Clever CEOs are playing along, whether shareholders like it or not. Exhibit A consists of Nvidia (NVDA) and AMD (AMD), which are basically buying export licenses from the Trump administration so they can sell semiconductors in China. Both companies have agreed to pay the US government 15% of their revenues from chip sales in China in exchange for the right to sell there. 'My political head is spinning again with this new pay-to-play plan with Nvidia and AMD,' Peter Boockvar, chief investment officer at Bleakley Financial Group, wrote in an Aug. 11 analysis. 'I pray for the sake of American free market capitalism that it stops here." The Nvidia and AMD deals immediately bring to mind competitor Intel (INTC), which hasn't yet agreed to cough up an export toll. Here's a safe guess: It, too, will pay a similar fee for similar privileges. At the moment, Intel is doing damage control. On Aug. 7, Trump directly attacked CEO Lip-Bu Tan, saying on social media that he 'must resign, immediately.' Trump and some other Republicans seem to be concerned that Tan had improper connections with China's military at another firm he ran until 2021. Tan, a US citizen, now plans to meet with Trump to demonstrate his commitment to American interests, according to the Wall Street Journal. Fine. But that's probably not what Trump is looking for. Trump has a feral instinct for detecting vulnerability in adversaries and using that leverage to extract measurable gains. He'll want something more tangible from Tan and Intel than reassurances. Trump's favorite currency is money. Intel probably has no choice but to pay. Nvidia's 15% gratuity to the government for chip sales to China will cost the firm about $3 billion per year. The company's stock dipped on the news, then drifted up. Investors may have first thought only of the bottom line, then decided the payment would be better than losing chip sales to China completely. The hit to AMD would be smaller because its China sales are lower. AMD stock also dipped then rose following the news. Intel stock rose on news of Tan's chat with Trump, as buyers hope the company's damage-control effort pays off. Trump has engineered this whole scenario. In April, Trump tightened restrictions on US chip sales to China, essentially blocking the sale of certain chips. Nvidia said that move would cost the company $5.5 billion in lost revenue. Then, in July, Trump reversed himself and decided to allow such chip sales to China. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang has met several times with Trump during the last several months and has become an aggressive advocate for policies that benefit his company. When Trump changed his position in mid-July, it looked as if Huang had simply convinced Trump it was the right move. But the 15% gratuity now makes it look as if a deal was in the works that gave Trump some additional government revenue to crow capitalism is a system in which the rich and well-connected get their way because they have personal sway with decision makers. The Gilded Age, or 'robber baron' era of the late 1800s was perhaps the peak of crony capitalism in the United States. One result was the massive concentration of wealth among leading industrialists, which eventually led to the union movement, the graduated income tax, and much stronger regulation of business. We're not back to the robber baron days — yet. But Trump clearly favors CEOs and companies that do his bidding and help him boast of what he considers victories. Trump often dangles the bait himself. And he clearly realizes that his authority to impose tariffs unilaterally gives him a certain power over CEOs, companies, and even entire countries. Trump threatened Apple with steep tariffs on its imported products earlier this year, unless it started making the iPhone and other products in the United States. That would double or triple the cost of an iPhone, making it financially ruinous. But CEO Tim Cook met with Trump recently to tout other domestic investments. That led to a splashy made-in-America 'announcement' with Cook at the White House on Aug. 6, the kind of publicity stunt Trump revels in. Read more: 5 ways to tariff-proof your finances Trump refused approval for a deal crucial to Paramount's finances until the company agreed to a generous legal settlement involving its CBS subsidiary and canceled the show of comedian Stephen Colbert, a vocal Trump critic. Then Trump's regulators approved the deal. Paramount did what Trump wanted and got the favor it was seeking. Trump has browbeaten Coca-Cola into making soda with real cane sugar, perhaps to reward sugar-industry barons who happen to be political supporters. He has muscled a dozen big law firms into doing pro bono work for his pet causes. Many big companies have rolled back diversity and inclusion policies because Trump finds them offensive. In many cases those firms moved preemptively, on their own, simply to avoid the possibility that Trump would threaten their federal contracts or try to drum up a consumer boycott against them. Trump's method of favor-trading is the velvet glove: seek back-scratching deals first, then attack if he doesn't get them. CEOs are figuring out that it's better to work with Trump behind the scenes than go through the whole painful process of refusing Trump's demands, facing a Trump threat, watching their stock tank, trying to make nice with Trump, and then agreeing to some kind of face-saving deal anyway. Nvidia's Huang is the model Trump-whisperer, making concessions that seem like win-wins and bypassing the confrontational part of the cycle. More CEOs are likely to follow. There are obvious risks. Some of these deals, such as the export gratuities, could be illegal and overturned by the courts, causing more uncertainty for firms than they might face otherwise. CEOs who bed down with Trump may also be betting too heavily on one party and pay the consequences if the other party ever regains power. Their brands could also suffer, as Elon Musk's Tesla has, if consumers begin to view CEOs or their companies as partisan operators. But for now, the money move is to play Trump's game, because it's the only game in town. Rick Newman is a senior columnist for Yahoo Finance. Follow him on Bluesky and X: @rickjnewman. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices.
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's tax law will mostly benefit the rich, while leaving poorer Americans with less, CBO says
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump'stax and spending law will result in less income for the poorest Americans while sending money to the richest, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported Monday. The CBO estimates that the 10% of poorest Americans will lose roughly $1,200 a year as they experience restrictions on government programs like Medicaid and food assistance, while the richest 10% of Americans will see their income increase by $13,600 from tax cuts. Overall, American households will see more income from the tax cuts in the legislation, including middle income households, but the largest benefit will go to the top 10% of earners. The CBO's report comes as lawmakers are away from Washington, many taking their messages about the bill to voters. Republicans muscled the legislation — deemed 'the big, beautiful bill' by Trump — through Congress in July. Democrats all vehemently opposed the legislation, warning that its tax cuts and spending priorities would come at the expense of vital government aid programs and a ballooning national debt. 'This really is a big, beautiful bill for billionaires, but for the poor and the working class in this country, you are actually poorer,' said Rep. Brendan Boyle, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, in an MSNBC interview on Monday. Changes to eligibility for government food assistance under the law will impact millions of Americans, the CBO found. Roughly 2.4 million people won't be eligible for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program under new work requirements for many recipients. Low-income Americans could also see their income reduced through further restrictions on food aid and other types of assistance included in the law. Already, more than 10 million Americans are expected to be without health insurance by 2034 due to changes to Medicaid under the law. Republicans were eager to sell the upsides of the legislation — arguing that the tax cuts will spur economic growth — while they are on a monthlong summer break from Washington. But those who have held townhalls in their home districts have often been greeted by an earful from voters and activists. 'Tax the rich,' the crowd in Lincoln, Neb. chanted last week as Republican Rep. Michael Flood attempted to defend the bill. Still, Trump has been undeterred. 'President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill is putting America First like never before, delivering huge savings for hardworking families, boosting our economy, and securing our borders,' said White House deputy press secretary Abigail Jackson in a statement last week. Stephen Groves, The Associated Press
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trial postponed as Yukon government and Jack Hulland families enter settlement discussions
The trial of a class-action lawsuit brought by families of Jack Hulland Elementary School in Whitehorse has been postponed for potential settlement discussions. The class-action represents former students who say they were subject to holds, restraints, or placed in seclusion at the school between January 2007 and June 2022. The trial was scheduled to start Monday and run for three weeks. James Tucker, a lawyer representing the families, told CBC Monday morning that the groups are instead meeting for a potential settlement discussion. Settlement negotiations are confidential, Tucker said. The trial has been tentatively rescheduled for Aug. 13. If a settlement agreement is not reached, the trial is expected to happen over 15 days. 'Hundreds' of potential plaintiffs involved The lawsuit alleges that students were repeatedly put in holds and seclusion over 15 years. The plaintiffs allege it caused severe psychological and emotional damage, to the point of developing post-traumatic stress disorder. Tucker said last week that "hundreds" of former students have stepped forward as potential plaintiffs and he expects to hear from more. "Our allegation is that these practices were used routinely and repeatedly at this school over a 15-year period," Tucker said in an interview. "So, I'm not even sure that we have identified all the people who were truly impacted." Two former students and their guardians brought the lawsuit as the representative plaintiffs. "It's been a very tough process for them," Tucker said. "They want to see these practices brought to light, they want people to know what occurred, and while they know the past can't be altered — their hope is that these practices will not continue into the future." The Yukon Department of Education is named as the defendant. The government's statement of defence denies many of the allegations, including that the school had "forcible confinement policies." The Jack Hulland school council settled with families last year. The Justice department did not respond to CBC's request for comment by deadline.
