60 People Arrested During San Francisco Protest Against Immigration Raids: Police
At least 60 people were arrested on Sunday after protests against federal immigration raids in San Francisco escalated into violence, according to the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD).
Police said officers began monitoring the assembly near Sansome and Washington streets around 7 p.m. on June 8 as protesters engaged in 'First Amendment activity.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Arizona teachers could be sued for what they say in classroom under bill on Hobbs' desk
A bill on the governor's desk would allow students and their parents to sue K-12 and university teachers and could make the instructors pay damages for teaching or promoting antisemitism. The proposal has provoked concern from public-school advocates about exacerbating the teacher shortage and has raised red flags about First Amendment violations due to what the proposed law considers "antisemitism." But supporters, such as bill sponsor Rep. Michael Way, R-Queen Creek, say it's needed because existing anti-discrimination laws "either weren't clear enough or didn't contain the necessary enforcement mechanism to address this problem." House Bill 2867 would prohibit teachers, administrators, contractors and volunteers at K-12 public schools and public or private universities from: teaching or promoting antisemitism; requiring students to advocate for anti-Semitic points of view; and receiving professional development "in any antisemitism" that creates a "discriminatory" or "hostile" environment. The bill includes specific examples of speech the state would prohibit, such as calling the existence of Israel "racist" or comparing Israeli policy to that of Nazis. But when Texas Gov. Greg Abbott tried to punish university student groups for the same type of speech, a Federal District Court in Texas said it amounted to "viewpoint discrimination that chills speech in violation of the First Amendment." That might bode poorly for the constitutionality of Arizona's bill. Some supporters have contended the bill doesn't violate the First Amendment because it targets teachers, not students. However, one provision of the Arizona bill does target students groups — a fact one First Amendment expert said was an obvious violation. Other sections of the bill raise concerns about the free speech rights of teachers and private universities. Way said his bill was prompted by concerns ignited by Hamas' attack against Israel on October 7. It comes amid a wave of similar proposals from lawmakers nationwide who also have tried to combat antisemitism. The efforts have come under fire by free speech advocates for using antisemitism to punish people for criticizing the Israeli government or for supporting the Palestinian people. The Arizona Education Association, the main teacher's union in the state, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona have urged Gov. Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, to veto the bill. The teacher's union, in a letter also signed by the National Council of Jewish Women Arizona, told Hobbs the proposal "weaponizes legitimate concerns about antisemitism to attack public education" by stripping teachers of professional liability protections. That would "incentivize bad-faith litigation by outside groups with unlimited resources, leaving Arizona educators, who already earn some of the lowest salaries in the nation, with few avenues to defend themselves." The ACLU of Arizona wrote to Hobbs that signing it "will chill the First Amendment rights of students, teachers, speakers and administrators," and targets those who criticize Israel. State Rep. Walt Blackman, R-Snowflake, who supported the bill, rejected that idea. The bill wasn't about limiting speech but rather protecting a threatened group, he said. He urged other lawmakers to stand their ground and protect a persecuted community, pondering how such a law may have helped Black Americans in the past. "If you study your history, this sort of thing in schools were happening to Black Americans. And there wasn't a law to protect Black Americans from anti-Black speech in schools, particularly in the South," Blackman said. "This group of people, the Jewish community, this is a long time coming — to protect their identity, their community, their demographics," he said. In addition to banning antisemitic instruction in the classroom, the bill also seeks to restrict the use of public funding for training that promotes antisemitism and bans schools from penalizing or discriminating against a teacher who refuses to teach or promote antisemitism. The bill lays out a formal investigation and appeal process, involving school officials, governing boards and state education agencies. Any member of the public could file a complaint to kick-off the process. Accused officials found in violation could face consequences ranging from formal reprimands to suspension without pay to termination and losing their teaching certificate. The proposal also allows students and their parents to pursue civil litigation after an investigation ends, and says officials can be held personally responsible to pay damages or attorneys fees, if a court awards them. It is unclear who would pay the costs if a public institution itself was found in violation by a court. The bill says taxpayers funds could not be used. Way — who refused to answer questions when reached by phone and insisted on communication by email — told The Arizona Republic that decision would be left to the courts. There are varying opinions on how much of the proposed law, or which portions, would violate the First Amendment. If it became law and was challenged, courts could strike down parts of it and let others take effect. First Amendment expert Eugene Volokh, professor emeritus at the UCLA School of Law, said the parts of the bill banning what teachers couldn't teach in K-12 were probably OK. However, courts could find the bill's definition of antisemitism too vague to warrant punishment like termination, he added. The provision targeting university student groups, however, was "pretty clearly unconstitutional," Volokh said. "Generally speaking, the government can control what is taught in the public schools. It's sort of the government speech," he said. That dynamic changes in higher education, though. "Courts have recognized indeed that faculty members have very broad rights to speak out in public and in their scholarship. And in-part because we're talking not about kids as students but adults as students, that you can't just fire a faculty member simply on the grounds that the speech he said causes tension with people or disrupts morale ... . It would have to be very, very high bar," Volokh said. A few sections that appeared to restrict teachers' speech outside of the classroom also are constitutionally questionable. Volokh pointed to a section that would ban teachers or officials from calling for the genocide of a group of people or the "murder of members of a particular group." Because that section didn't specifically indicate that doing so was banned while teaching, it might be a First Amendment violation, Volokkh said. The First Amendment prohibits the government from banning speech, including offensive and uncomfortable ideas. Those protections are limited when the speech, by its very utterance, incites a clear and present danger — a high threshold. Hobbs, a Democrat whose 2026 re-election chances are widely seen as at risk, has not indicated her position on the bill. She is required to sign or veto it by June 10. It passed the Arizona Senate on May 28 along party lines, with Republicans in support. The House of Representatives passed it June 4, with Democrats Alma and Consuelo Hernandez of Tucson and Lydia Hernandez of Phoenix joining the Republicans. The Hernandez sisters, who are Jewish, are vocal proponents of laws that clamp down on antisemitism. Alma Hernandez, before casting her vote of approval, said the law was needed to address issues like schools displaying Palestinian flags. "That flag is not a flag of a country. That flag is a political statement, which should not be allowed in our public schools," Hernandez said. Taylor Seely is a First Amendment Reporting Fellow at The Arizona Republic / Do you have a story about the government infringing on your First Amendment rights? Reach her at tseely@ or by phone at 480-476-6116. Seely's role is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input. This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Arizona bill to ban teaching of antisemitism is First Amendment issue
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Homan: Newsom, Bass haven't crossed line but ‘not above the law'
Border czar Tom Homan said on Monday that California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass (D) have not crossed the line amid tensions between law enforcement and immigration raid protesters, but they, like everyone else, are 'not above the law.' In an interview on MSNBC's 'Morning Joe,' Homan sought to clarify earlier remarks that he said were taken 'out of context' by news outlets reporting that he declined to rule out arresting Newsom and Bass amid a clash between the federal and state leaders over the best approach to quelling protests in Los Angeles. Homan said his previous remarks initially focused on the protesters. 'Here's what I said: They have a right to protest, they have the First Amendment rights, but they can't cross that line. They can't cross that line of impediment. They can't cross that line of putting their hands on officers. They can't cross the line of knowing and concealing an illegal alien,' Homan said. 'These are all federal crimes, and they're in statute, and they will be prosecuted.' Homan said a reporter then asked him whether those rules apply to Newsom and Bass. 'He asked the question, 'Does that include Mayor Bass and Governor Newsom?' and I was clear they haven't crossed the line, but they're not above the law either,' Homan said, stressing that he noted Newsom and Bass would face prosecution only 'if they commit a crime.' The remarks came in an interview early Monday, when Homan was asked to respond to Newsom's dare late Sunday to arrest him. Newsom had been responding to reports that Homan threatened to do so if he or Bass interfered in immigration enforcement efforts. 'Come after me, arrest me. Let's just get it over with, tough guy, you know? I don't give a damn. But I care about my community. I care about this community,' Newsom told NBC News on Sunday. 'So, Tom, arrest me. Let's go,' Newsom added. But Homan, on Monday, brushed off the remarks. 'I'm not biting on that,' Homan said. After he clarified his earlier remarks, Homan said, 'That's what was happening. I never threatened to arrest Governor Newsom.'
Miami Herald
2 hours ago
- Miami Herald
L.A. protests: Glendale terminates detention contract with ICE, DHS
June 9 (UPI) -- Officials in Glendale, Calif., abruptly cancelled the city's contract with Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs and Enforcement under which the local police department holds immigration detainees on their behalf. The city said in a news release Sunday night, two days after large protests broke out in Los Angeles over ICE raids on Hispanic neighborhoods, that it had made the decision because its association with ICE had become too "divisive." It said it had maintained "a highly regulated, locally-controlled facility providing clean accommodations, on-call medical care, family visitation, and legal counsel to detainees" for the past 18 years but that the step was necessary to ensure Glendale residents and businesses "do not suffer the consequences of the unruly and unlawful behavior of others." "Despite the transparency and safeguards the city has upheld, the city recognizes that public perception of the ICE contract -- no matter how limited or carefully managed, no matter the good -- has become divisive," the statement said. "And while opinions on this issue may vary -- the decision to terminate this contract is not politically driven. It is rooted in what this city stands for -- public safety, local accountability, and trust. "Glendale is consistently ranked as one of the safest cities in the nation. That is no accident. The Glendale Police Department is trusted and supported by the residents and businesses. At this time, it is in our best interest to not allow that trust to be undermined." Glendale said it regretted the step because the facilities it provided allowed detainees to be housed in good conditions in a centrally located detention center close to their families and community, rather than a remote or one run by a private contractor. It acknowledged some families would face more hurdles trying to visit loved ones being held by ICE and that access to legal counsel may be more limited in alternative facilities. At least three police officers were injured and about 60 people were arrested Sunday evening when the Los Angeles protests briefly spread to San Francisco, the city police department said. In a post on X Monday morning, SFPD said it declared an unlawful assembly after some people taking part in a protest downtown became violent and began carrying out assaults and damaging property. "While many left the scene, several individuals remained and continued engaging in illegal activity. Two officers suffered non-life-threatening injuries and one was transported to a local hospital for further medical assistance." SFPD said the arrests took place after protesters who refused to disperse moved toward Market Street and Kearney Street where they attacked a patrol vehicle and vandalized buildings and property. One firearm was seized. Neither DHS or ICE immediately commented on the development out of Glendale, although the announcement did come after 10 p.m. EDT on a Sunday night. State and local law enforcement partner voluntarily with ICE, DHS and the Justice Department on a number of programs under which they are delegated to enforce limited elements of U.S. immigration law and in return receive training and federal funding. According to ICE's website, state, county or municipal agencies in 40 of the 50 states have a least one active agreement in place under its so-called 287 (g) Program. Glendale said it had not engaged in immigration enforcement and would not do so in future and that immigration law was not its responsibility,. It stressed that the city was in in full compliance with California state law, which prohibits local law enforcement from using resources for immigration enforcement. Copyright 2025 UPI News Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
