Latest news with #CaliforniaConstitution
Yahoo
19 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
California AG sues Trump after sovereignty 'trampled' by National Guard
The Brief California AG sued the Trump administration twice on Monday, bringing the total number of lawsuits to 22. AG Rob Bonta said the first suit is because President Trump "trampled" the sovereignty of Calif. by sending in the National Guard. The second suit involves "unlawfully imposing" immigration enforcement requirements on federal grants. SACRAMENTO, Calif. - California Attorney General Rob Bonta on Monday sued the Trump administration in two separate lawsuits, after he said the state's sovereignty was "trampled" when the president ordered National Guard troops to the immigration protests in Los Angeles. This marks 22 lawsuits the state of California has filed against the Trump administration to date. The first suit comes after Trump called for Gov. Gavin Newsom's arrest, after Newsom objected to the president sendng in the federalized National Guard being deployed to LA to quell anti-ICE protests over the weekend which "needlessly escalated chaos and violence." Bonta said the lawsuit, which names President Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and the Department of Defense, outlines why the takeover violates the U.S. Constitution and exceeds the president's Title 10 authority, not only because the takeover occurred without the consent or input of the governor, as federal law requires, but also because it was unwarranted. "Let me be clear: There is no invasion. There is no rebellion," Bonta said. "The president is trying to manufacture chaos and crisis on the ground for his own political ends. Federalizing the California National Guard is an abuse of the President's authority under the law– and not one we take lightly. We're asking a court to put a stop to the unlawful, unprecedented order." Under the California Constitution, Bonta said that Newsom is the commander-in-chief of the California National Guard. Bonta also named a second lawsuit against the Trump administration, where he was joined by attorneys general in Illinois, New Jersey and Rhode Island, and in spirit with 20 attorneys general across the United States. This suit involves what Bonta calls Trump "unlawfully imposing immigration enforcement requirements" on billions of dollars in annual U.S. Department of Transportation and U.S. Department of Homeland Security grants. "The president doesn't have the authority to coerce state and local governments into using their resources for immigration enforcement," Bonta said. "This is a blatantly illegal attempt to bully states into enacting Trump's inhumane and illogical immigration agenda. Once again, Trump's actions go beyond the scope of his presidential power."
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Government drones used in 'runaway spying operation' to peek into backyards in Sonoma County, lawsuit says
Three residents filed a lawsuit this week against Sonoma County seeking to block code enforcement from using drones to take aerial images of their homes in what the American Civil Liberties Union is calling a "runaway spying operation." The lawsuit, filed by the ACLU Wednesday on behalf of the three residents, alleges that the county began using drones with high-powered cameras and zoom lenses in 2019 to track illegal cannabis cultivation, but in the years since, officials have used the devices more than 700 times to find other code violations on private property without first seeking a warrant. "For too long, Sonoma County code enforcement has used high-powered drones to warrantlessly sift through people's private affairs and initiate charges that upend lives and livelihoods. All the while, the county has hidden these unlawful searches from the people they have spied on, the community, and the media," Matt Cagle, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Foundation of Northern California, said in a statement. A spokesperson for Sonoma County said the county is reviewing the complaint and takes "the allegations very seriously." Read more: Will these drones 'revolutionize' 911 response? L.A. suburb will be first to test The lawsuit comes amid a national debate over the use of drones by government agencies who have increasingly relied on the unmanned aircraft during disasters and for environmental monitoring and responding to emergency calls. More recently, some agencies in California and in other states have explored using drones to investigate code enforcement violations. In 2024, nearly half of Sonoma County's drone flights involved non-cannabis violations, including construction without a permit, junkyard conditions and zoning violations, according to data included in the complaint. "The use of drones over someone's private space raises a question of what is considered private," said Ari Ezra Waldman, a professor of law at UC Irvine. Waldman said if law enforcement on the ground wants to see on the other side of a tall fence or trees into someone's property they have to get the person's consent or they need probable cause for a warrant. "Why shouldn't that apply above ground too?" he said. California doesn't have a law that regulates the use of drones by code enforcement agents. In 2015, lawmakers in the state Assembly approved a measure that would have restricted the use of drones over private property without the owner's permission. Then-Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed the bill saying at the time that it could expose hobbyists or commercial users to "burdensome litigation." The ACLU argues that the county's use of drones as an investigative tool violates the California Constitution which provides people the right to privacy and against unreasonable searches and seizures. "I think that our expectations of privacy are based on social norms and people don't normally expect that someone is going to have a super high powered, detailed ability to capture extraordinary detail with a camera that's just buzzing over their property," Waldman said. "We shouldn't have to walk around life expecting that just because this technology exists that we have no privacy from anything anymore, from any direction." The lawsuit also alleges that the county's drone policy has loosened in the past several years. In 2019, the policy required inspectors to receive a complaint about a property before deploying a drone. Now, officials have no such requirement, allowing them instead to launch "discretionary proactive investigations," the complaint states. Residents named in the lawsuit say that the drones hovering above their homes have resulted in ongoing privacy concerns and a loss of enjoyment of their property. One plaintiff, Benjamin Verdusco, decided to sell his home after he learned that the county had been taking pictures of his backyard with a drone in 2021, according to the complaint. Read more: Police drones could soon crisscross the skies. Cities need to be ready, ACLU warns Another plaintiff, Nichola Schmitz, who is deaf, wasn't able to hear the buzz of the drone hovering above her property on Oct.10, 2023. When a worker on her property pointed it out she "became confused and worried," the complaint states. She rushed to her bedroom and closed the curtains, concerned about how long the drone had been there and whether it had seen her naked on her property earlier that day. She alleges the drone made two big loops around her property and, shortly after, a red tag appeared on her gate alleging two violations of the county code — one for illegal grading and another for having on her property an unpermitted dwelling, a small cabin that her father had built on the land in 1981. She spent $25,000 for a contractor to fix the alleged grading issue but still faces $10,000 in fines. ACLU attorneys allege the evidence obtained by the drone was done so unlawfully because officials did not have a search warrant. "This horrible experience has shattered my sense of privacy and security," Schmitz said in a statement. "I'm afraid to open my blinds or go outside to use my hot tub because who knows when the county's drone could be spying on me." A third plaintiff, Suzanne Brock, confronted county officials after she learned that they had taken detailed aerial photos of her outdoor bathtub and shower that she and her daughter used daily. She expressed concern to inspectors that they might have seen her naked in the bathtub. Code Enforcement Inspector Ryan Sharp told her that "when we see something like that, we turn around," according to the complaint. When Brock asked if county officials see people during the flights, Sharp told her yes, according to the complaint, but added that "we don't put that in the camera footage." 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.
Los Angeles Times
4 days ago
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Government drones used in ‘runaway spying operation' to peek into backyards in Sonoma County, lawsuit says
Three residents filed a lawsuit this week against Sonoma County seeking to block code enforcement from using drones to take aerial images of their homes in what the American Civil Liberties Union is calling a 'runaway spying operation.' The lawsuit, filed by the ACLU Wednesday on behalf of the three residents, alleges that the county began using drones with high-powered cameras and zoom lenses in 2019 to track illegal cannabis cultivation, but in the years since, officials have used the devices more than 700 times to find other code violations on private property without first seeking a warrant. 'For too long, Sonoma County code enforcement has used high-powered drones to warrantlessly sift through people's private affairs and initiate charges that upend lives and livelihoods. All the while, the county has hidden these unlawful searches from the people they have spied on, the community, and the media,' Matt Cagle, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Foundation of Northern California, said in a statement. A spokesperson for Sonoma County said the county is reviewing the complaint and takes 'the allegations very seriously.' The lawsuit comes amid a national debate over the use of drones by government agencies who have increasingly relied on the unmanned aircraft during disasters and for environmental monitoring and responding to emergency calls. More recently, some agencies in California and in other states have explored using drones to investigate code enforcement violations. In 2024, nearly half of Sonoma County's drone flights involved non-cannabis violations, including construction without a permit, junkyard conditions and zoning violations, according to data included in the complaint. 'The use of drones over someone's private space raises a question of what is considered private,' said Ari Ezra Waldman, a professor of law at UC Irvine. Waldman said if law enforcement on the ground wants to see on the other side of a tall fence or trees into someone's property they have to get the person's consent or they need probable cause for a warrant. 'Why shouldn't that apply above ground too?' he said. California doesn't have a law that regulates the use of drones by code enforcement agents. In 2015, lawmakers in the state Assembly approved a measure that would have restricted the use of drones over private property without the owner's permission. Then-Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed the bill saying at the time that it could expose hobbyists or commercial users to 'burdensome litigation.' The ACLU argues that the county's use of drones as an investigative tool violates the California Constitution which provides people the right to privacy and against unreasonable searches and seizures. 'I think that our expectations of privacy are based on social norms and people don't normally expect that someone is going to have a super high powered, detailed ability to capture extraordinary detail with a camera that's just buzzing over their property,' Waldman said. 'We shouldn't have to walk around life expecting that just because this technology exists that we have no privacy from anything anymore, from any direction.' The lawsuit also alleges that the county's drone policy has loosened in the past several years. In 2019, the policy required inspectors to receive a complaint about a property before deploying a drone. Now, officials have no such requirement, allowing them instead to launch 'discretionary proactive investigations,' the complaint states. Residents named in the lawsuit say that the drones hovering above their homes have resulted in ongoing privacy concerns and a loss of enjoyment of their property. One plaintiff, Benjamin Verdusco, decided to sell his home after he learned that the county had been taking pictures of his backyard with a drone in 2021, according to the complaint. Another plaintiff, Nichola Schmitz, who is deaf, wasn't able to hear the buzz of the drone hovering above her property on Oct.10, 2023. When a worker on her property pointed it out she 'became confused and worried,' the complaint states. She rushed to her bedroom and closed the curtains, concerned about how long the drone had been there and whether it had seen her naked on her property earlier that day. She alleges the drone made two big loops around her property and, shortly after, a red tag appeared on her gate alleging two violations of the county code — one for illegal grading and another for having on her property an unpermitted dwelling, a small cabin that her father had built on the land in 1981. She spent $25,000 for a contractor to fix the alleged grading issue but still faces $10,000 in fines. ACLU attorneys allege the evidence obtained by the drone was done so unlawfully because officials did not have a search warrant. 'This horrible experience has shattered my sense of privacy and security,' Schmitz said in a statement. 'I'm afraid to open my blinds or go outside to use my hot tub because who knows when the county's drone could be spying on me.' A third plaintiff, Suzanne Brock, confronted county officials after she learned that they had taken detailed aerial photos of her outdoor bathtub and shower that she and her daughter used daily. She expressed concern to inspectors that they might have seen her naked in the bathtub. Code Enforcement Inspector Ryan Sharp told her that 'when we see something like that, we turn around,' according to the complaint. When Brock asked if county officials see people during the flights, Sharp told her yes, according to the complaint, but added that 'we don't put that in the camera footage.'
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Fresno County DA, sheriff get an extra two years in battle over election schedule
Two of Fresno County's top law enforcement officials just got extensions on their services, despite their own reservations and a voter-backed initiative that would have seen them up for re-election in 2026. On Monday, a state court judge ruled to invalidate Fresno County's Measure A, the 2024 ballot initiative that aligned District Attorney and Sheriff elections with the gubernatorial election cycle. The ruling pushes Fresno County District Attorney Lisa Smittcamp and Sheriff John Zanoni into six-year terms, with their re-elections now set for 2028. Measure A passed in 2024's March primary election with 55% of the vote and immediately put Fresno County at odds with AB 179, a 2022 state law that mandated such elections be synced to the presidential cycle. In July, California's Attorney General and Secretary of State challenged the measure in court, claiming it was preempted by the state law. In a 19-page ruling released Monday, Superior Court Judge Tyler Tharpe agreed. While the county has 'authority to set the terms of its elected officials,' he wrote, 'it is not authorized under the California Constitution to set the dates on which the elections of local officials will be held.' Judge Tharpe acknowledged the change as 'a fairly minor intrusion on the County's power to set the terms of its officials.' It is a one-time extension. 'Any district attorney and sheriff elected from 2028 onward will serve four-year terms as specified by the county's charter.' In a joint statement, Smittcamp and Zanoni said they are prepared to serve the six-year terms and 'remain committed to fulfilling our responsibilities with integrity and dedication for the full duration,' even as the county Board of Supervisors meets to discuss potential next steps, which it will do in closed session June 10. But they also expressed concerns about the legislative process that led to the enactment of AB 759 in the first place. 'After sitting in the Senate Appropriations Committee's suspense file for over a year, the bill advanced rapidly in the final weeks of the legislative session,' they wrote. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill into law in September 2022 'with little to no opportunity for public review,' Smittcamp and Zanoni said in their statement. 'As a result, local governments and voters were excluded from a policy decision that directly affects the terms of their elected officials.' For his part, Attorney General Rob Bonta claimed Monday's ruling as a win for voters. 'There is nothing more fundamental to American democracy than the right to vote and make your voice heard,' Bonta said in a statement. 'With Measure A, Fresno County threatened to undermine that fundamental right, intentionally seeking to move elections for sheriff and district attorney to off years, when voters are far less likely to show up and cast a ballot,' he wrote. 'Our democracy works best when everyone can participate.'
Politico
7 days ago
- Business
- Politico
All noisy on the Western solar panel front
Presented by the Stop the Oil Shakedown Coalition. With help from Alex Nieves and Timothy Cama SOLAR WARS: There's enough heat behind California's long-simmering rooftop solar fight that it's boiling over on two fronts this week. On Wednesday, the California Supreme Court will hear arguments from both sides on whether regulators broke the law when they slashed rooftop solar credits for new customers in 2022. At the same time, assemblymembers have a Friday deadline to pass (or not) a controversial legislative proposal to reduce the payments for legacy rooftop solar customers. The multipronged fight shows just how entrenched the two camps are — with rooftop solar advocates allying with builders and real estate agents on one side and utilities with labor unions and ratepayer advocates on the other — and just how willing they are to take their arguments to as many venues as possible. It's a fight that's likely to continue, given that the Supreme Court appears poised to rule narrowly — and perhaps not even on the policy debate itself. Instead, the Supreme Court's clerk and executive officer, Jorge Navarrete, asked lawyers last month to focus on how much the judicial branch should give deference to the California Public Utilities Commission when reviewing its various decisions. A lower court had previously cited deference to the CPUC — one of the rare state agencies created by the California Constitution itself — to reject a lawsuit by environmental groups that sought to restore the rooftop solar subsidies. For the environmental groups, the focus on deference is now an opportunity to take their fight to the agency itself, which some see as too cozy with the investor-owned utilities it regulates. 'Already, there's a gap in checks and balances on the commission,' said Roger Lin, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, which is bringing the lawsuit against the CPUC. 'The implications of this case stretch beyond rooftop solar.' The investor-owned utilities, who otherwise argued in support of the CPUC's decision, declined to weigh in on how much the court should defer to the agency in a filing earlier this year. But Attorney General Rob Bonta's office is defending the agency, arguing in a brief that the CPUC deserves deference because of precedent, because of the agency's expertise and because the Legislature has 'repeatedly tasked the Commission with studying the effects of the NEM tariff and revising it as appropriate.' It's timely, then, to point out that the Legislature is currently considering doing part of the commission's work itself. Assemblymember Lisa Calderon's AB 942 would slash the payments to longstanding rooftop solar customers who got spared by the CPUC's 2022 decision to reduce payments solely for new customers. Calderon agreed this week to exempt farms and schools, which is eliminating opposition from farming groups close to some moderate Democrats. She also picked up support from the CPUC's Public Advocates Office, which said the measure could reduce costs for ratepayers without rooftop solar. But it'll come down to the wire: Some progressive Democrats have already peeled off from the bill in committee votes, citing concerns from their constituents with rooftop solar that the bill would break existing contracts. The Supreme Court will start hearing arguments at 9 a.m. on Wednesday (and it will be livestreamed if you want to follow along). AB 942 has until Friday to pass off the Assembly floor. — CvK Did someone forward you this newsletter? Sign up here! MUSK MANIA: Elon Musk has finally returned to his roots — and Democrats are loving it. Musk's departure from the White House, where he was once among Trump's top advisers, took an explosive turn Tuesday as the Tesla CEO ripped Republicans' budget megabill on X, calling it a 'disgusting abomination' that will raise the national debt. As we've noted, Musk's company never stopped stumping for California policies like the low-carbon fuel standard, even as Trump promised to unravel the state's regulations and Republicans blamed state officials for high gas prices. The eccentric billionaire was always expected to eventually butt heads with an administration poised to throttle the electric vehicle transition and eliminate clean energy incentives his company has profited greatly from. While the episode shocked Republicans and drew pushback from House Speaker Mike Johnson, Democrats could barely hide their excitement, Timothy Cama reports for POLITICO's E&E News. 'I haven't spoke to Elon Musk, I'm not sure what the reasons are for this extraordinary statement, but we're in complete agreement,' House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said. — AN WE HAVE A BEE PROBLEM: California lawmakers are coming to the rescue of one of nature's most important insects: honeybees. The Assembly unanimously approved Assemblymember Rhodesia Ransom's bill today to launch a program within the California Department of Food and Agriculture to monitor the health of honeybee populations. AB 1042 would allow the department, when extra funding is available, to provide incentives and grants for health intervention projects to support the state's managed honeybee population. The critical species is responsible for pollinating crops like fruits and tree nuts that underpin the state's agriculture sector and maintaining natural ecosystems, but are dying in large numbers due to climate change, habitat loss, pesticides and other factors. Commercial beekeepers reported an average loss of 62 percent of their bee colonies between June 2024 and February of this year, according to a national survey by Project Apis m. (honeybees' Latin name). — AN RECYCLE THE REDO: Gov. Gavin Newsom told CalRecycle to redo its plastic waste reduction rules in the name of affordability. Now, the lawmakers that passed the law behind the rules say the redo goes against their intent — and that they were the ones who wanted to make recycling affordable to begin with. Twenty-two lawmakers joined Sen. Ben Allen, the author of 2022's SB 54, in a letter to Newsom, CalEPA Secretary Yana Garcia and CalRecycle Director Zoe Heller last week. Their goal all along, they write, was to lower costs to cities and ratepayers by making manufacturers responsible for recycling their products. The new rules, they argue, stray from their intent by exempting too much food and medication packaging and not preventing hazardous recycling technologies. A coalition of environmental groups including Oceana and Californians Against Waste also blasted the new rules Monday. 'Getting this right is about more than checking a legislative box,' the letter reads. 'California has an opportunity to lead in the global effort to tackle plastic pollution, but not if vague, watered-down language subverts that very goal.' Who is happy: the California Chamber of Commerce, which is arguing that the new rules are more achievable. Spokesperson John Myers shared a takeaway: 'By fostering a regulatory environment that balances ecological responsibility with economic viability, the state sets a precedent for sustainable innovation of a circular economy.' — CvK TWO STRIKES: It's been a bad week for Sable Offshore Corp.'s oil drilling ambitions. Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Donna Geck issued an order Tuesday blocking a waiver granted by the state fire marshal that would allow the Texas-based oil company to restart a crude pipeline off Santa Barbara. That decision comes just days after a different Santa Barbara judge sided with the California Coastal Commission and stopped repairs on the 124-mile pipeline that leaked over 100,000 gallons in 2015. Linda Krop, chief counsel for the Environmental Defense Center, which sued the fire marshal and Sable, cheered the rulings and used the moment to call out Newsom, who has stayed relatively quiet on the issue. 'At the very least, Governor Newsom should demand that his agencies follow the law and do everything possible to prevent another ecological and economic disaster in our state,' she said. — AN — Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has a message for climate activists worried about the White House: roll up your sleeves and "stop whining.' — Southern California is being hit with a triple whammy of thunderstorms, dry lightning and rip tides. — Underground water supplies in the Colorado River basin are depleting even faster than the river itself, according to a new study based on NASA satellite data.
