Former Times reporter sues Villanueva, L.A County, alleging 1st Amendment violation
Former Los Angeles Times reporter Maya Lau filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday against Los Angeles County, former Sheriff Alex Villanueva, a former undersheriff and a former detective, alleging that a criminal investigation into her activities as a journalist violated her 1st Amendment rights.
The suit comes less than a year after a Times article revealed that Lau had been the target of an L.A. County Sheriff's Department probe that 'was designed to intimidate and punish Lau for her reporting' about a leaked list of deputies with a history of misconduct, Lau's attorneys alleged in an emailed statement.
Lau's suit seeks unspecified damages to compensate her for alleged violations of her dignity and privacy, as well as the 'continuous injuries' and anxiety she says in the complaint that she has faced in the wake of the revelation she had been investigated.
The suit details 'six different counts of violating Ms. Lau's rights under the U.S. constitution and California state law, including retaliation and civil conspiracy to deny constitutional rights,' according to the statement by Lau's attorneys.
'It is an absolute outrage that the Sheriff's Department would criminally investigate a journalist for doing her job,' Lau said in the statement. 'I am bringing this lawsuit not just for my own sake, but to send a clear signal in the name of reporters everywhere: we will not be intimidated. The Sheriff's Department needs to know that these kinds of tactics against journalists are illegal.'
The Sheriff's Department said in an emailed statement that it had "not been officially served with this lawsuit" by late Tuesday afternoon.
"While these allegations stem from a prior administration, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department under Sheriff Robert G. Luna is firmly committed to upholding the Constitution, including the First Amendment," the statement said. "We respect the vital role journalists play in holding agencies accountable and believe in the public's right to a free and independent press."
Villanueva said via email that he had not yet reviewed the complaint in full and that "under the advice of counsel, I do not comment on pending litigation."
"What I can say is the investigation in question, like all investigations conducted by the Public Corruption Unit during my tenure as Sheriff of Los Angeles County, were based on facts that were presented to the Office of the Attorney General," he said. "It is the political establishment, of which the LA Times is a part, that wishes to chill lawful investigations and criminal accountability with frivolous lawsuits such as this one."
A spokesperson for the county counsel's office declined further comment. The other defendants in the lawsuit, former Undersheriff Tim Murakami and former Detective Mark Lillienfeld, did not respond to requests for comment Tuesday afternoon.
In December 2017, The Times published a story by Lau about a list of about 300 problem deputies. A lengthy case file reviewed by The Times last year found that department investigators launched an initial probe into who provided Lau with the list. The agency's investigation began when Jim McDonnell was sheriff in 2017. The Sheriff's Department ultimately dropped the investigation without referring it for proscution after, as Lau's complaint says, it 'turned up no evidence connecting Ms. Lau to any crime.'
Read more: Inside a secret 2014 list of hundreds of L.A. deputies with histories of misconduct
The case file reviewed by The Times last year stated that, after Villanueva became sheriff in 2018, he revived the investigation into Lau, which the complaint alleges was part of an 'unlawful conspiracy' conducted as part of a policy of "retaliatory criminal charges against perceived opponents of LASD.'
Lillienfeld led the investigation, and Villanueva 'delegated to Undersheriff Murakami his decision-making authority' in the probe, which Murakami ultimately referred to the state attorney general's office for prosecution, Lau's complaint says. In May 2024, the office declined to prosecute her, citing insufficient evidence.
But Lau alleges that the damage was already done and that her rights under the 1st Amendment and California's Constitution had been violated. 'If LASD's actions are left unredressed,' according to the complaint, 'journalists in Los Angeles will be chilled from reporting on matters of public concern out of fear that they will be investigated and prosecuted.'
The Sheriff's Department told The Times last year that its probe of Lau was closed and that the department under Luna does not monitor journalists.
David Snyder, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, a nonprofit free speech and press freedom advocacy organization, told The Times last year that reporting on leaked materials involving a matter of public concern is typically 'protected under the 1st Amendment' even if a reporter is aware they were obtained illegally.
'You're not authorized to break into a file cabinet to get records. You're not authorized to hack computers. But receiving information that somebody else obtained unlawfully is not a crime,' Snyder said.
The saga of the leaked records began in 2014, when Diana Teran compiled a list of deputies with histories of disciplinary problems. Teran was working for the Office of Independent Review, which conducted oversight of the Sheriff's Department until it closed down that July.
In 2015, Teran was hired by the Sheriff's Department to serve in an internal watchdog role. In 2017, according to the investigative file reviewed by The Times last year, she heard that Times reporters including Lau had been asking questions about the list.
After investigating further and learning that the reporters had asked about specific details that matched her 2014 list, she grew worried that it had been leaked.
On Dec. 8, 2017, The Times ran an investigation by Lau and two other reporters that described some of the misconduct detailed in the list, from planting evidence and falsifying records to sexual assault. Some of the deputies on the list, the reporters found, had kept their jobs or been promoted.
Read more: Times reporter was leaked list of problem deputies. The Sheriff's Department investigated her
Sheriff's department investigators interviewed Teran and other department officials who all denied leaking the list. The investigation was dropped before Villanueva became sheriff in November 2018.
Several months later, Lillienfeld was assigned to investigate allegations that Teran and other oversight officials had illegally accessed department personnel records, reopening the probe into the leaked list.
Lillienfeld's inquiry produced an 80-page report that was part of the case file reviewed by The Times last year. It detailed potential times when the list could have been leaked by Teran and stated that she denied doing so.
In fall 2021, Murakami sent the 300-page case file – which identified Lau, Teran, L.A. County Inspector General Max Huntsman, an assistant to Teran and an attorney in Huntsman's office as suspects – to California Atty. General Rob Bonta. There was no probable cause to prosecute Lau, according to the complaint.
'Undersheriff Murakami alleged that Ms. Lau had engaged in conspiracy, theft of government property, unlawful access of a computer, burglary, and receiving stolen property,' the complaint says. 'Ms. Lau did not commit any of these crimes.'
Bonta declined to prosecute the case.
"The retaliatory investigation against Ms. Lau is one example of how Alex Villanueva used the LASD to target and harass his political opponents,' said Justin Hill, an attorney at Loevy & Loevy representing Lau. 'Our communities suffer when governmental leaders try to silence journalists and other individuals who hold those leaders accountable. This lawsuit seeks to re-affirm the protected role that journalism plays in our society."
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump vows ‘large scale fines' after transgender athlete wins California track and field events
President Trump vowed to impose hefty fines on California after a transgender athlete won two high school track and field championships, stirring up national controversy. Trump called out California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) over the situation, saying he knows the administration could enforce penalties for allowing Jurupa Valley junior AB Hernandez to compete. 'A Biological Male competed in California Girls State Finals, WINNING BIG, despite the fact that they were warned by me not to do so. As Governor Gavin Newscum fully understands, large scale fines will be imposed!!!' Trump wrote on Truth Social. The Justice Department threatened to take legal action against California public schools Monday, arguing the state's bylaw that allowed the transgender athlete to compete violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution and discriminated against athletes on the basis of sex, The New York Times reported. After Hernandez's success earlier in the postseason drew national attention, California's high school sports governing body implemented a rule change for the state championship that allowed additional girls to compete and medal in Hernandez's events. She went on to win the triple jump and high jump and placed second in the long jump at this weekend's state championships. Trump signed an executive order in February that banned transgender athletes from competing in girls and women's sports after promising to do so on the campaign trail. The order directs his administration to halt funding for schools that refuse to ban transgender athletes but some states have not compiled, including Maine. Maine Gov. Janet Mills (D) has said the president's order violates the state's antidiscrimination law and Trump has argued the state is violating Title IX, the federal civil rights law against sex discrimination, by allowing trans girls to compete. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Cuomo says he shouldn't have resigned as NY governor
Former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D), who is now running for New York City mayor, says he regrets resigning as the state's top executive in 2021 amid sexual harassment allegations. 'If I had to do it again, I wouldn't have resigned,' Cuomo told The New York Times in an interview published Tuesday. 'At the time, I thought that I would be a distraction to government functionality, that they would all be involved in impeachment proceedings, blah, blah, blah,' he continued. 'Looking back, what has really been done in the past four years anyway, right?' Thank you for signing up! Subscribe to more newsletters here Cuomo resigned days after state Attorney General Letitia James (D) issued a report that found he 'sexually harassed a number of current and former New York State employees' and ran an office 'filled with fear and intimidation.' The then-governor had voiced his regret for making women 'feel uncomfortable' but denied the allegations against him. He remained defiant when resigning, arguing his move was motivated not by the merits of the claims but to avoid being a distraction to the state's work. Cuomo, 67, has held a significant lead in polling ahead of the June 24 mayoral contest after launching his campaign in March. He faces State Assembly member Zohran Mamdani (D) and embattled Mayor Eric Adams (D), among other candidates. 'I was done. I was in the private sector, just enjoying life,' Cuomo told The Times on Monday. 'But then I was looking at what was happening in New York City. You saw Mayor Adams getting into trouble; you saw (President) Trump coming; so, I'm worried about New York City.' Cuomo's work in the private sector after leaving the governor's office has included consulting. He disclosed in campaign finance reports that he earned at least $500,000 in 2024 from consulting work, but he has not revealed his clients. 'A lawyer can't disclose,' he told The Times, alluding to his 1982 degree from Albany Law School. He said he worked in the early stages on a real estate developer and friend's proposal to build a luxury marina on a decommissioned military base in Puerto Rico, but wasn't paid after the project stalled. 'It sounded like a very cool project, and I looked into it a little bit,' Cuomo said. 'But it didn't go anywhere.' The former longtime governor filed a lawsuit against James last year seeking more details about her sexual harassment report's findings and made an ethics complaint against his fellow New York Democrat in 2022. In addition to the numerous harassment allegations, Cuomo also drew broad backlash over his handling of the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, despite playing a prominent role in recovery efforts. The Department of Justice (DOJ) opened an investigation in April over Cuomo's past testimony before Congress about his administration's pandemic-era nursing home policies.


The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Congress should grow a backbone and reclaim tariff authority
For decades Congress has been gradually ceding its constitutional authority to the executive branch of government. And the executive branch has stretched that authority far beyond anything Congress or the Constitution intended. As the branch of government charged with levying taxes, including tariffs, it's time for Congress to reclaim that constitutional authority. Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution says,'The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States …' It's Congress's job to impose and collect taxes and duties, which include tariffs. It's not about whether tariffs are good or bad economic policy. It's about who has the constitutional authority to impose them. Because of the challenges created by two world wars and the occasional need for a quick U.S. response to international developments, 'Congress enacted statutes authorizing the President to declare a state of emergency and make use of extraordinary delegated powers.' Over time, Congress became concerned that presidents were taking advantage of those 'extraordinary powers.' A bipartisan Senate report released in 1974, 'A Brief History of National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers,' found 'at least 470 significant emergency statutes without time limitations delegating to the Executive extensive discretionary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Legislature, …' As a result, Congress passed the National Emergencies Act (1976), ending most 'emergencies' that gave the president the justification for imposing tariffs, and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (1977) or IEEPA to limit presidential overreach. According to an analysis on Congress's website, IEEPA affirmed that 'emergency authorities [are] employed only with respect to a specific set of circumstances which constitute a real emergency, and for no other purpose,' asserting that 'a state of emergency should not be a normal state of affairs.' In short, IEEPA was passed to keep a president from declaring an emergency to use tariffs as a basic tool for implementing economic and foreign policy. But that's exactly how President Trump is using them. A three-judge panel on the Court of International Trade recently called out Trump's abuse of IEEPA and ruled, 'The Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs,' thus striking down many of his tariffs. An Appeals Court has partially stayed the ruling to give the appellate judges time to consider the arguments. The case will likely go to the U.S. Supreme Court, where Trump's tariffs may have an uphill battle given the court's position on the 'major questions doctrine,' which says policies with significant economic impacts need clear congressional authority. No doubt that's what Republicans who are uneasy with Trump's tariff tantrums hope will happen — getting the country past the worst of the tariff turmoil without Republicans having to stand up to the president. But they may be disappointed. Trump has implied that if the court strikes down his tariff overreach, there are other ways to justify his tariffs. As the Wall Street Journal reports, 'U.S. officials are weighing their options should they need to find a new legal authority to impose the president's steep tariffs.' Remember how critical Republicans were of President Biden for searching for new legal authority when the Supremes ruled against his student loan forgiveness schemes? Would Republicans be just as critical if Trump does the same? Congress needs to reclaim its control over U.S. taxing authority, including tariffs. And the only way it can do that is either to amend IEEPA to strengthen presidential restrictions, pass a different law, or take stronger measures to challenge the president. Of course, the president would likely veto any bill. So, Congress would need the constitutionally required two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate to override the veto. That won't be easy. Every Democrat will vote for the bill, not to reclaim Congress's constitutional rights, but to embarrass the president. Democrats didn't speak out when President Barack Obama exceeded his authority in granting legal status to some 830,000 undocumented children brought to the U.S. by their parents. And even though Congress has the 'power of the purse,' Democrats largely remained silent when Biden tried to spend more than $400 billion on student loans. But it will take a lot of Republicans voting with Democrats to pass legislation over a presidential veto that limits Trump's tariff powers. There was a time when House and Senate leadership zealously protected the legislative branch's constitutional authority. House Speaker Sam Rayburn (D-Texas) and Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd ( closely guarded Congress's constitutional prerogatives. Do Republicans have the courage to do the same? Merrill Matthews is a public policy and political analyst and the co-author of 'On the Edge: America Faces the Entitlements Cliff.' Follow him on X@MerrillMatthews.