Dem Judge Joel Cano banned by New Mexico Supreme Court after alleged Tren de Aragua gang member arrested in his home
Jose 'Joel' Cano resigned in March after agents from the Department of Homeland Security arrested suspected TdA gang member Cristhian Ortega-Lopez from Cano's home in February.
4 New Mexico judge, Joel Cano, resigned from the bench after an alleged Tren de Aragua gang member, Cristhian Ortega-Lopez, was arrested at his home.
Donaanademocrats
Advertisement
4 The Supreme Court of New Mexico has banned Cano after the incident.
New Mexico Supreme Court
The discipline makes it so Cano 'can never hold a judicial office again, be a candidate for a judicial office, and cannot exercise any judicial authority in the state.'
The ban even bars Cano from officiating weddings in the state.
Advertisement
4 Cristhian Ortega-Lopez has been linked to the Tren de Aragua gang by ICE officials.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
4 Ortega-Lopez was arrested in Cano's home.
U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico
The discipline, handed down by the Supreme Court of New Mexico, forestalls disciplinary hearings scheduled for Thursday.
Investigators found pictures on social media of Ortega-Lopez, 23, eating dinner with Cano's family and posing for Christmas pictures in 2024. Cano is wearing a cowboy hat and a bolo tie, Ortega-Lopez is wearing a classic New York Yankees baseball cap and a collared shirt that conceals his neck tattoos, the very tattoos that investigators say reveal his gang affiliation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Match-ups for legislative seats set for Washington's November election
Democratic state Sen. Deb Krishnadasan, left, is running to keep a seat she was appointed to in the 26th Legislative District. Challenging her is Republican state Rep. Michelle Caldier, right. (Photos courtesy of campaigns) With Washington state's primary in the books, the focus shifts to the November general election for nine Democratic state lawmakers seeking to keep seats to which they were appointed. Each of them won Aug. 5, some more easily than others, in results certified Wednesday by the secretary of state's office. In the closest primary contest, Democratic state Sen. Deb Krishnadasan beat Republican state Rep. Michelle Caldier by 1,158 votes in the 26th Legislative District that spans parts of Pierce and Kitsap counties. It is expected to be tight when they face off again this fall. Krishnadasan trailed Caldier on election night. She moved in front on the second day of ballot counting and stayed there. Republicans view this race as their best opportunity to gain a seat in the Senate, where Democrats hold a 30-19 edge. In another high-profile match-up, Democratic Sen. Victoria Hunt finished comfortably ahead of Republican Chad Magendanz, a former state lawmaker, in the 5th District in east King County. As the only two candidates, they will line up against each other again in a few weeks. In the 48th District, two Democratic candidates — Sen. Vandana Slatter and Rep. Amy Walen — are advancing. Slatter sent a strong message by garnering nearly 60% of the vote in the district encompassing Redmond, Bellevue and Kirkland. Democratic Rep. Edwin Obras and fellow Democrat Kevin Schilling, the mayor of Burien, advanced in the 33rd District in south King County. Obras won with 47% followed by Schilling with 31%. Republican Darryl Jones finished with nearly 22%. Walen and Schilling are each considered the more moderate candidates in those two contests. In the 41st District, Democratic Rep. Janice Zahn and Republican John Whitney will square off in November. Zahn is heavily favored after capturing 64% of the vote to Whitney's 28%. This district includes Mercer Island and Newcastle, along with parts of Bellevue, Renton, Issaquah, and Sammamish. In the 48th District, Democratic Rep. Osman Salahuddin garnered 63% to finish ahead of Republican Dennis Ellis, who had nearly 29%. Democrat Ranga Bondada was a distant third. Three appointed legislators — state Sens. Tina Orwall of Des Moines and Emily Alvarado of Seattle, and Rep. Brianna Thomas of West Seattle — were unopposed but will still appear on ballots in November. Orwall serves in the 33rd District. Alvarado and Thomas represent the 34th District in Seattle. Ballots for the Nov. 4 general election will be mailed to voters by Oct. 17.
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court clears way for cancellation of NIH grants tied to diversity, gender
Washington — The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for the Trump administration to proceed with the cancellation of National Institutes of Health research grants tied to issues like gender identity and diversity, equity and inclusion. In a 5-4 decision, in which Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided in part with the majority, and Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the minority, the high court lifted a lower court order that required the NIH to restore hundreds of research grants that had been canceled because they were tied to these issues. The legal challenge from over a dozen states and a coalition of research groups will continue to play out in the lower court. Barrett wrote that the District Court lacked the jurisdiction to order the restoration of the grants, while Roberts said in his dissent that "falls well within the scope of the District Court's jurisdiction," and "if the District Court had jurisdiction to vacate the directives, it also had jurisdiction to vacate the 'Resulting Grant Terminations.'" Justice Neil Gorsuch, voting with the majority, said in his opinion, "Lower court judges may sometimes disagree with this Court's decisions, but they are never free to defy them." He pointed to the Supreme Court's earlier ruling in the Department of Education v. California, granting a stay "because it found the government likely to prevail in showing that the district court lacked jurisdiction to order the government to pay grant obligations." The divided decision from the high court enables the administration to pull back awards that it says do not align with its policy objectives. Since returning to the White House for a second term, President Trump has directed federal agencies to cancel DEI-related grants or contracts and ensure federal funds do not go toward initiatives involving gender identity. The dispute before the Supreme Court arose after the Department of Health and Human Services and the head of NIH issued a series of directives in February that led to the cancellation of grant awards that were connected to DEI or gender identity, as well as research topics including vaccine hesitancy, COVID and climate change. NIH has a $47 billion budget and is considered the world's largest funder of biomedical research. More than 1,700 grants were canceled nationwide, including more than 800 awarded to public universities, state instrumentalities and local governments in 16 states that challenged the move. Lawyers for the Democratic state attorneys general told the Supreme Court in a filing that the sudden cancellation of the grants forced their universities to lay off or furlough employees, cut student enrollment and withdraw admissions offers. The states and research groups challenged the grant terminations in April, arguing the move violated the Constitution and a federal law governing the agency rulemaking process. The plaintiffs sought to block NIH from ending grants and to have funding that had already been axed restored. A federal judge in Massachusetts held a bench trial and ruled in June that the grant terminations were unlawful. The judge, William Young, who was appointed by former President Ronald Reagan, ordered that the directives from the Trump administration and resulting grant terminations be set aside. Young found that NIH engaged in "no reasoned decision-making" in rolling out the grant terminations, and wrote there was "not a shred of evidence" to back up the administration's claims that DEI studies are used to support discrimination on the basis of race and other protected characteristics. The Trump administration asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit to pause the district court's decision, which it declined to do. Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked the high court for emergency relief last month. In his emergency appeal, the solicitor general argued that the Supreme Court had a chance to "stop errant district courts from continuing to disregard" its decisions. Sauer pointed to an April order from the justices that cleared the way for the Department of Education to halt millions of dollars in teacher-training grants that it said funded programs that involve DEI initiatives. The high court said in that case that the Trump administration was likely to succeed in showing that the federal district court that oversaw the dispute lacked jurisdiction to order the payment of money under federal law. The solicitor general said the judicial system does not rest on a "lower-court free-for-all where individual district judges feel free to elevate their own policy judgments over those of the Executive Branch, and their own legal judgments over those of this Court." But the public health groups warned that even a brief stay of the district court's decision reinstating the grants would invalidate crucial multiyear projects that have already been paid for by Congress, "inflicting incalculable losses in public health and human life because of delays in bringing the fruits of plaintiffs' research to Americans who desperately await clinical advancements." They warned that pulling the grants would do irreversible harm to public health, halting biomedical research that Congress directed NIH to fund. "That, and the obvious harm to those who suffer from chronic or life-threatening diseases and their loved ones, must be balanced against NIH's ill-defined monetary interests and any asserted incursion on its policymaking latitude," the research organizations wrote in a filing. Sen. Eric Schmitt on his new book, "The Last Line of Defense: How to Beat the Left in Court" Unsealed video shows TikTok employees' concerns about its impact on teens Hurricane Erin bringing coastal flooding to New York as it churns off East Coast
Politico
17 minutes ago
- Politico
Sacramento takes its gerrymandering bow
Presented by FROM CALIFORNIA WITH LOVE: Sacramento often carries a chip on its shoulder — but this morning, California's sixth-largest city occupied the center of the political universe. A Democrat-boosting, Texas-neutralizing gerrymander cleared the Senate and Assembly floors as lawmakers raced to get a redrawn House map on the November ballot. But while California voters will get the final say on Gov. Gavin Newsom's gambit, this fight is bigger than the Golden State. And Democrats want to make sure you remember it. 'Do we want to allow the entire nation to be disenfranchised?' asked Assemblymember Rhodesia Ransom. 'Or do we ask the citizens of California to lock arms with us and to march forward to save democracy in the world?' Rarely does the Legislature's work so directly jolt the beating heart of American politics. Yes, California's scale and economic might mean its laws can ripple out and influence national policy. But it's one thing to set the tone on climate change or tech regulation or workers' rights. It's another to play an instrumental role in the balance of federal political power. 'Today, in this country and in the world, we have autocrats that are desperately trying to consolidate their power by weakening democracy by changing the rules of the game,' said Assemblymember Steve Bennett. National politics pervaded the debate. Hours after Texas Republicans voted to move ahead, Democrats in Sacramento stripped out 'trigger language' that would have prevented California's bill from taking effect unless Texas acted. Democrats invoked President Donald Trump early and often. Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal warned Texas had 'shamelessly affected the national balance of power.' Republicans had the opposite message: Bby following Texas down the redistricting spiral, they warned, California was helping to erode Democratic norms. Assembly Minority Leader James Gallagher even said Trump was 'wrong' to push a Texas redraw. 'You move forward fighting fire with fire and what happens? You burn it all down,' Gallagher said. But passage was never in doubt. Democratic lawmakers had long since fallen in line behind a tactic emanating from the highest levels of the party, including Newsom and House Democrats. Every Senate Democrat voted aye and only two of the Assembly Democrats who were present did not: Alex Lee, a progressive leader who has long voiced concerns, and Jasmeet Bains, who is running to unseat Rep. David Valadao in a district that could soon turn bluer. So Thursday's voting and speechifying was more instructive in how it augured the themes of a bruising election campaign. You can expect to hear about how Trump's agenda has hurt Californians. Democrats denounced immigration raids unleashed on Los Angeles and deplored healthcare cuts in Trump's signature legislation. But their overarching argument was less about policy than about America's political system. All politics are said to be local. But for the next few months, Democrats will ask voters to look beyond parochial concerns and cast a vote on something they are casting as far more consequential — that if California does not respond to Trump and counter his bid to maintain power, nothing less than authoritarianism could supplant democracy. Today was just the start. IT'S THURSDAY AFTERNOON. This is California Playbook PM, a POLITICO newsletter that serves as an afternoon temperature check on California politics and a look at what our policy reporters are watching. Got tips or suggestions? Shoot an email to lholden@ WHERE'S GAVIN? Waiting with pen in hand for the Legislature to deliver the three bills that will start the process of redistricting. WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW TODAY A WIN FOR UC: A federal appeals court today denied the Trump administration's request that it be allowed to withhold millions of dollars in University of California research grants as a legal fight over the funding proceeds, our Eric He reports. The unanimous decision by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals keeps in place a preliminary injunction a judge issued in a lawsuit filed by a group of UC researchers, who sued over the administration's decision to cancel research grants funded by the Environmental Protection Agency, National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Humanities. The injunction forced the agencies to reinstate the funding as the case proceeds. The administration appealed to the 9th Circuit, asking it to lift the injunction. In rejecting the legal bid, the panel determined that terminating the grants 'will result in layoffs, interruptions to graduate programs, destruction of research projects, and injury to Plaintiffs' professional reputations.' 'Further, if research projects are lost due to grant funding being halted midstream, the public will obtain no benefit from research in which substantial funds have already been invested — a significant waste of taxpayer dollars,' the ruling said. IN OTHER NEWS CARDS ON THE TABLE: Californians appear ready to legalize online sports betting — with some caveats — according to a POLITICO-Citrin Center-Possibility Lab survey of more than 1,400 registered voters. Sixty percent of those surveyed said they were open to legalizing the form of gambling that has exploded in popularity nationwide. Twenty-five percent said it should be legal and is long overdue, while 35 percent said it 'might make sense' but needed more details. The 40 percent of poll-takers who weren't sold on legalization selected responses that expressed concern about increased gambling addiction. Twenty-one percent of respondents said they're 'wary of legalization,' and 19 percent said it would be a 'huge mistake.' Men were more interested in lawful sports betting, with 64 percent open to the concept, compared to 55 percent of women. The poll was conducted from July 28 to Aug. 12 and has a 2.6 percent margin of error for the full sample. Online-betting companies failed to legalize the industry with a 2022 ballot measure after California's powerful tribal leaders ran their own initiative asking voters to allow sports betting only at tribal casinos and racetracks. Both measures tanked at the ballot box. As we've reported, the tribes and a few of the largest sports betting platforms have since talked about teaming up on a legalization effort, although it seems unlikely an effort will be ready in time for next year's ballot. Attorney General Rob Bonta issued an opinion recently that concluded all fantasy sports betting sites are prohibited under state law. His office has yet to enforce the opinion, though. — Lindsey Holden, with help from Dustin Gardiner TRUST FALL: Republican voters in California are about as likely to put their faith in tech companies to regulate artificial intelligence as they are President Donald Trump's government, and more likely to trust either than members of the opposing party, according to a new POLITICO-Citrin Center-Possibility Lab poll. That is a notable shift, since for a decade or more technology emanating from Silicon Valley in the heart of deep-blue California was branded by Republicans as carrying a liberal slant. The party has found opportunities to take Big Tech to task for everything from alleged online censorship of conservative voices to kids' safety on social media. But the pivot from Republicans tracks with a rightward turn for tech during Trump's second term. Tech companies have reversed course on practices like fact checking and sought to curry favor with an administration more concerned with beating China in the AI race than putting guardrails on a developing and extremely valuable industry. It's also not an obvious outcome for Golden State conservatives, especially as traditional social media companies like Meta are among those investing billions in cutting-edge AI research. Read the full story from POLITICO here. — Chase DiFeliciantonio CALLING FOR BACKUP: Whether you like them or not, dual endorsements are seemingly here to stay. The Peace Officers Research Association of California endorsed both Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa in the governor's race today. Bianco, a Republican, has rolled out a slew of supportive messages from his law enforcement colleagues across the state — trying to capitalize on a rightward shift on criminal justice issues that showed up in the wide margins of support for the tough-on-crime Proposition 36 last fall. Villaraigosa, meanwhile, is polling better than other moderate Democrats in the field and could lean on police backing as he tries to gain ground on frontrunner Katie Porter. — Blake Jones WHAT WE'RE READING TODAY — San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie said that autonomous vehicles and rideshare services will start limited passenger operations next week. (SF Standard) — One of California's largest property insurers is the first company to use a new state order focused on resolving the state's insurance crisis by saying it would cover more homes in parts of the state where access to insurance is lacking due to wildfire risk. (POLITICO's E&E News) — A former UC Berkeley professor and dance researcher filed a lawsuit accusing the school of refusing to rehire her because she is from Israel. (San Francisco Chronicle) AROUND THE STATE: — Teachers and education leaders are getting involved with patrolling neighborhoods in search of immigration enforcement in San Diego County. (San Diego Union-Tribune) — Los Angeles has been testing a program that sends specially trained civilians without guns to respond to certain calls for help. (Los Angeles Times) — compiled by Juliann Ventura
