Latest news with #L.A.TimesPolitics
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court throws out Mexico's suit against U.S. gun makers in a unanimous decision
Mexico has a severe problem with gun violence, which originates north of the border, the Supreme Court acknowledged Thursday. "The country has only a single gun store, and issues fewer than 50 gun permits each year. But gun traffickers can purchase firearms in the United States—often in illegal transactions—and deliver them to drug cartels in Mexico," the court said. These weapons are used to "commit serious crimes — drug dealing, kidnapping, murder, and others." Nonetheless, the justices in an unanimous decision threw out Mexico's lawsuit against the U.S. gun industry, ruling that federal law shields gun makers from nearly all liability. Justice Elena Kagan said Congress enacted the law in 2005 to prevent gun companies from being held sued for harms 'caused by the misuse of firearms by third parties, including criminals," she said. The law has one narrow exception, she said, that would allow suits if the gun companies had knowingly and deliberately helped criminals buy guns to be sent into Mexico. But she said the Mexico's lawsuit did not cite evidence for claim. "Mexico's complaint does not plausibly allege that the defendant manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers' unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers," she wrote. "We have little doubt that, as the complaint asserts, some such sales take place.— and that the manufacturers know they do. But still, Mexico has not adequately pleaded what it needs to: that the manufacturers 'participate in' those sales 'as in something that [they] wish[] to bring about." Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
California to ask federal judge for sweeping pause to Trump's tariffs
The California attorney general's office said Tuesday it will seek a preliminary injunction in its case challenging President Trump's tariff policy, a move that could result in a court order freezing sweeping import duties on worldwide products that have rocked the global economy and U.S. markets since last month. The case, filed last month in the Northern District of California, argues that Trump lacks authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose the tariffs he announced April 2 on nearly all U.S. trading partners, as well as those levied against China, Mexico and Canada due to the fentanyl trade, a set of tariffs that used the same national security rationale. A hearing in the case is scheduled for next week, and a decision on the preliminary injunction could come from the San Francisco federal court as soon as mid-June, an official with the attorney general's office told The Times. Read more: Jon Voight, Sylvester Stallone and entertainment groups lobby Trump for tax provisions Trump announced a new baseline for global tariffs on April 2 and a series of country-specific tariff rates that sent banks and financial institutions into a panic. The White House has retreated on several of the harshest elements of the policy, but tariffs remain far higher on most trading partners, inflicting continuing harm on California, the state's lawyers argue. "Uncertainty and unpredictability are bad for business, bad for the economy, and bad for California," Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement. "California is set to experience an outsized share of losses due to our larger economy, workforce, and exposure to trade. We are pulling out all the stops and will today ask the court to immediately halt these illegal tariffs while California argues its case." In a filing in another case, the attorney general's office submitted an amicus brief supporting an effort by other states to halt the tariffs in the Court of International Trade, which could issue a ruling on the matter even earlier. 'President Trump has overstepped his authority, and now families, businesses, and our ports are literally paying the price,' said Gov. Gavin Newsom. 'As the largest economy in the nation, California has the most to lose from President Trump's weak and reckless policies.' Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Yahoo
01-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Cloobeck sues Villaraigosa over use of the phrase 'proven problem solver'
In an unusual twist in the governor's race, a wealthy Democratic businessman is suing former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa over the use of a common phrase in political campaigns. Stephen Cloobeck, a philanthropist and Democratic donor who made his fortune in real estate and hospitality, filed a lawsuit against Villaraigosa this week after the former mayor repeatedly described himself as a "proven problem solver" in campaign materials. Cloobeck, who has applied for a federal trademark of the phrase "I am a proven problem solver,' texted the federal lawsuit to Villaraigosa late Tuesday, though the former mayor has not been served yet. The lawsuit argues that Cloobeck has been using the phrase since March 2024, and that "it has acquired extensive goodwill, developed a high degree of distinctiveness, and become famous, well known, and recognized as identifying Cloobeck's campaign." "In light of the fame, acquired goodwill, and overall consumer recognition of [the phrase Cloobeck is seeking to patent, he] is very concerned that the public will likely be confused or mistakenly believe that Villaraigosa's campaign is endorsed, approved, sponsored by, or affiliated, connected, or associated with" Villaraigosa, the suit alleges. Cloobeck and Villaraigosa are two Democrats running in an increasingly crowded 2026 gubernatorial field to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom. Read more: Who is running for California governor in 2026? Meet the candidates Representatives for Villaraigosa were incredulous that a phrase that's used by politicians and elected officials across the nation would be the subject of litigation. "This is completely ludicrous. This lawsuit is a joke,' said Josh Pulliam, a strategist on the Villaraigosa gubernatorial campaign. 'Antonio launched his campaign on his record as a proven problem solver, and Cloobeck wants to prevent him from saying that? We think it's totally ridiculous and Trump-like tactics. Who knows what he's going to go after next?' Cloobeck said he sought to get Villaraigosa, who he has known for a quarter-century, to stop using the phrase and only filed the lawsuit after a lack of response to texts, phone calls and requests for a face-to-face meeting. "The response from them — or the lack of response from Antonio to me — is frankly offensive," he said, adding that they had lunch at the Polo Lounge in Beverly Hills six weeks ago. "You can be friends and have a business disagreement." Legal scholars said the lawsuit has little chance of success. 'The claim that this is a unique or distinctive phrase that could be trademarked is very difficult to succeed on. In the political context, people would want to tread even more carefully because you don't want to take phrases out of the political debate,' said Jessica Levinson, an election law professor at Loyola Law School. "This sounds more like a political tactic than a legal tactic," Levinson added. Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Yahoo
17-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court will hear Trump's proposed limits on birthright citizenship
The Supreme Court announced Thursday it will hear arguments in May on President Trump's proposed limits on birthright citizenship. But it was not clear whether the justices would weigh in on the constitutionality of Trump's proposal or instead decide only whether it can be blocked nationwide by a federal judge acting on behalf of a few plaintiffs. On his first day in office, Trump proposed to revise the 14th Amendment's promise that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." Under Trump's proposal, babies born in this country would not be deemed U.S. citizens if neither the mother nor the father was a citizen or a lawful permanent resident at the time of the birth. The proposal was challenged as unconstitutional based on the words and history of the 14th Amendment, and three judges have struck it down nationwide. Those judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state ruled based on lawsuits filed by individuals, groups and 22 states. Read more: Legal experts pan Trump's Supreme Court appeal on birthright citizenship Trump's lawyers said those rulings went too far. They appealed to the Supreme Court on procedural grounds and made what they described as "a modest request." They said the justices should rein in federal district judges and limit their power to make nationwide rulings. If the justices were to agree, however, it could clear the way to enforce Trump's new citizenship rules in many parts of the nation, even while the constitutionality of his plan remained in doubt. Several justices have voiced skepticism over district judges handing down rulings that set a national rule. But others have questioned the notion of a constitutional revision that goes into effect in some states and not others. Thursday's brief order suggests the justices are closely split on how to proceed. They said they will hear arguments on May 15 and would likely issue a decision by late June. Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
