Appeals court keeps in place restrictions on immigration stops in L.A. based on language, jobNew Foto - Appeals court keeps in place restrictions on immigration stops in L.A. based on language, job

LOS ANGELES — An appeals court on Friday kept in place aLos Angeles federal judge's ruling thatbars immigration agents from using a person's spoken language or job, like day laborer, as the sole pretext to detain people. The 9th U.S. Court of Appeals in its ruling said that there seemed to be one issue with U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong's temporary restraining order, but it did not overturn it as the government sought. The appeals court said that one part of the July 11 temporary restraining order did appear to be vague. "Defendants, however, are not likely to succeed on their remaining arguments," the court ruled, referring to the U.S. government. Frimpong, a judge at the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles, issued the temporary restraining order after a lawsuit was filed by people who claimed they were detained by immigration officers without good reason. Three people were waiting at a bus stop for jobs when they were detained by immigration officials, and two others are U.S. citizens who claim they were stopped and aggressively questioned despite telling agents they were citizens. Other organizations, including the United Farm Workers, also sued. Frimpong wrote in the temporary restraining order ruling that the people suing were "likely to succeed in proving that the federal government is indeed conducting roving patrols without reasonable suspicion and denying access to lawyers." The July 11 restraining order bars the detention of people unless the officer or agent "has reasonable suspicion that the person to be stopped is within the United States in violation of U.S. immigration law." It says they may not base that suspicion solely on a person's apparent race or ethnicity; the fact that they're speaking Spanish or English with an accent; their presence at a particular location like a bus stop or a day laborer pickup site; or the type of work one does. Los Angeles has been targeted by the Trump administration for immigration raids that the city's mayor has decried as a campaign to terrorize residents. The lawsuit that led to the temporary restraining order was filed against Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, the head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and others. Kyle Harvick, the deputy incident commander for the government's immigration action in Los Angeles, said that "certain types of businesses, including carwashes" were chosen by immigration agents "because past experiences have demonstrated that illegal aliens utilize and seek work at these locations," according to the appeals court ruling. The appeals court found that "the four enumerated factors at issue — apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent, particular location, and type of work, even when considered together — describe only a broad profile and 'do not demonstrate reasonable suspicion for any particular stop.'" The appeals court panel said that the government did not dispute constitutional issues when trying to get the temporary restraining order stayed. "They did not meaningfully dispute the district court's conclusion that sole reliance on the four enumerated factors, alone or in combination, does not satisfy the constitutional requirement of reasonable suspicion," the appeals court panel wrote. Mark Rosenbaum, senior special counsel for strategic litigation at Public Counsel, which is among the groups representing the people who sued, said Friday that the actions by immigration agents in the Los Angeles operation were unconstitutional. "Today's ruling sends a powerful message: the government cannot excuse illegal conduct by relying on racial profiling as a tool of immigration enforcement," Rosenbaum said. "These raids were unconstitutional, unsupported by evidence, and rooted in fear and harmful stereotypes, not public safety." The appeals court did find that part of Frimpong's temporary order was vague, relating to "except as permitted by law" in the clause about detaining people based on the four factors of race, speaking Spanish, a location or type of work. But it otherwise denied the government's motion for a stay. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, a Democrat, called the appeals court ruling a victory. "Today is a victory for the rule of law and for the City of Los Angeles," shesaid in a statement."The Temporary Restraining Order that has been protecting our communities from immigration agents using racial profiling and other illegal tactics when conducting their cruel and aggressive enforcement raids and sweeps will remain in place for now." The immigration raids launched in Los Angeles in June resulted inlarge protests in the city, some of which turned violent. The Trump administration sent National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles in a move that was condemned by Bass, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, and others. The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment late Friday about the appeals court ruling.

Appeals court keeps in place restrictions on immigration stops in L.A. based on language, job

Appeals court keeps in place restrictions on immigration stops in L.A. based on language, job LOS ANGELES — An appeals court on Friday kept ...
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweepsNew Foto - Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Friday night to uphold a lower court's temporary order blocking theTrumpadministration from conducting indiscriminateimmigrationstops and arrests in Southern California. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing Monday afternoon at which the federal government asked the court to overturn atemporary restraining orderissued July 12 by Judge Maame E. Frimpong, arguing it hindered their enforcement of immigration law. Immigrant advocacy groups filed suitlast month accusing President Donald Trump's administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in Southern California during the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. The lawsuit included three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens as plaintiffs. In her order, Frimpong said there was a "mountain of evidence" that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone. The Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and thedeployment of the National Guardsand Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded upimmigrantswithout legal status to be in the U.S. from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops,and farms, many who have lived in the country for decades. Among the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, "I was born here in the states, East LA bro!" They want to "send us back to a world where a U.S. citizen ... can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood," American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court. The federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week. "It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution," attorney Jacob Roth said. He also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable suspicion. He referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under law. "Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion," Roth said The judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments. "No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all," Judge Jennifer Sung said. However, those factors alone only form a "broad profile" and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she said. Sung, a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors "cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status." She also asked: "What is the harm to being told not to do something that you claim you're already not doing?"

Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps

Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal appeals court ru...
J.P. Crawford hits 2-run homer in 9th to lift the Mariners past the Rangers, 4-3New Foto - J.P. Crawford hits 2-run homer in 9th to lift the Mariners past the Rangers, 4-3

SEATTLE (AP) — J.P. Crawford hit a two-run home run in the ninth inning to give the Seattle Mariners a 4-3 victory over the Texas Rangers on Friday night. Dominic Canzone led off the ninth with a single off closer Robert Garcia (1-6), bringing Crawford to the plate. On the third pitch Crawford saw, he sent a 95 mph fastball into the seats in right. Seattle gained another game on AL West-leading Houston and firmed its grip on the third wild-card spot by two games over the Rangers. Rowdy Tellez, Josh Smith and Marcus Semien had RBI hits in the third to give Texas a 3-1 lead. Seattle newcomer Josh Naylor had an opposite-field double in the fifth to cut it to 3-2. Eduard Bazardo (5-0) pitched the ninth for the victory. Key moment Crawford's homer in the ninth. Key stat Crawford had the first walkoff homer of his major league career. Up next Merrill Kelly (9-6, 3.22 ERA) was set to make his Rangers debut Saturday, with Luis Castillo (8-6, 3.19 ERA) set to start for the Mariners. ___ AP MLB:https://apnews.com/hub/mlb

J.P. Crawford hits 2-run homer in 9th to lift the Mariners past the Rangers, 4-3

J.P. Crawford hits 2-run homer in 9th to lift the Mariners past the Rangers, 4-3 SEATTLE (AP) — J.P. Crawford hit a two-run home run in the ...
Report: ESPN to acquire RedZone, other NFL propertiesNew Foto - Report: ESPN to acquire RedZone, other NFL properties

ESPN has reached a deal with the NFL to purchase RedZone, NFL Network and other league holdings, The Athletic reported on Friday. The NFL will receive equity in ESPN that "is potentially worth billions" in exchange, according to the report. An official announcement is expected next week, ending a four-year period of complicated, on-and-off negotiations. Both sides declined to provide comment to The Athletic. In addition to RedZone and NFL Network, ESPN will gain access to seven more regular-season games and the NFL's fantasy football operations, as well as the potential to integrate sports betting and other special features. The NFL's equity stake in ESPN could be as much as 10 percent, CNBC first reported and The Athletic confirmed. An ESPN-NFL deal would require regulatory approval, a process that could take up to a year to complete. The two sides already have a cozy relationship. ESPN pays the NFL about $2.7 billion per year to air a total of 25 games, including "Monday Night Football." The network also holds the rights to the Super Bowls in 2027 and 2031. Friday's reported agreement comes as ESPN is preparing to launch its direct-to-consumer service, with subscribers paying $29.99 per month to bypass cable and satellite providers to view all of the network's programming through the ESPN app. --Field Level Media

Report: ESPN to acquire RedZone, other NFL properties

Report: ESPN to acquire RedZone, other NFL properties ESPN has reached a deal with the NFL to purchase RedZone, NFL Network and other league...
After a reference to Trump's impeachments is removed from a history museum, complex questions echoNew Foto - After a reference to Trump's impeachments is removed from a history museum, complex questions echo

NEW YORK (AP) — It would seem the most straightforward of notions: A thing takes place, and it goes into the history books or is added to museum exhibits. But whether something even gets remembered and how — particularly when it comes to the history of a country and its leader — is often the furthest thing from simple. The latest example of that came Friday, when theSmithsonian Institutionsaid ithad removed a referenceto the 2019 and 2021 impeachments of PresidentDonald Trumpfrom a panel in an exhibition about the American presidency. Trump has pressed institutions and agencies under federal oversight, often through the pressure of funding, to focus on the country's achievements and progress and away from things he terms "divisive." A Smithsonian spokesperson said the removal of the reference, which had been installed as part of a temporary addition in 2021, came after a review of "legacy content recently" and the exhibit eventually "will include all impeachments." There was no time frame given for when; exhibition renovations can be time- and money-consuming endeavors. In a statement that did not directly address the impeachment references, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said: "We are fully supportive of updating displays to highlight American greatness." But is history intended to highlight or to document — to report what happened, or to serve a desired narrative? The answer, as with most things about the past, can be intensely complex. It's part of a larger effort around American stories The Smithsonian's move comes in the wake of Trump administration actions likeremoving the nameof a gay rights activist from a Navy ship, pushing for Republican supporters in Congress todefund the Corporation for Public Broadcastingand getting rid of theleadership at the Kennedy Center. "Based on what we have been seeing, this is part of a broader effort by the president to influence and shape how history is depicted at museums, national parks, and schools," said Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. "Not only is he pushing a specific narrative of the United States but, in this case, trying to influence how Americans learn about his own role in history." It's not a new struggle, in the world generally and the political world particularly. There is power in being able to shape how things are remembered, if they are remembered at all — who was there, who took part, who was responsible, what happened to lead up to that point in history. And the human beings who run things have often extended their authority to the stories told about them. In China, for example, references to the June 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in Beijing's Tiananmen Square are forbidden and meticulously regulated by the ruling Communist Party government. In Soviet-era Russia, officials who ran afoul of leaders like Josef Stalin disappeared not only from the government itself but from photographs and history books where they once appeared. Jason Stanley, an expert on authoritarianism, said controlling what and how people learn of their past has long been used as a vital tool to maintain power. Stanley has made his views about the Trump administration clear; he recently left Yale University to join the University of Toronto, citing concerns over the U.S. political situation. "If they don't control the historical narrative," he said, "then they can't create the kind of fake history that props up their politics." It shows how the presentation of history matters In the United States, presidents and their families have always used their power to shape history and calibrate their own images. Jackie Kennedy insisted on cuts in William Manchester's book on her husband's 1963 assassination, "The Death of a President." Ronald Reagan and his wife got a cable TV channel to release a carefully calibrated documentary about him. Those around Franklin D. Roosevelt, including journalists of the era, took pains to mask the impact that paralysis had on his body and his mobility. Trump, though, has taken it to a more intense level — a sitting president encouraging an atmosphere where institutions can feel compelled to choose between him and the truth — whether he calls for it directly or not. "We are constantly trying to position ourselves in history as citizens, as citizens of the country, citizens of the world," said Robin Wagner-Pacifici, professor emerita of sociology at the New School for Social Research. "So part of these exhibits and monuments are also about situating us in time. And without it, it's very hard for us to situate ourselves in history because it seems like we just kind of burst forth from the Earth." Timothy Naftali, director of the Richard M. Nixon Presidential Library and Museum from 2007 to 2011, presided over its overhaul to offer a more objective presentation of Watergate — one not beholden to the president's loyalists. In an interview Friday, he said he was "concerned and disappointed" about the Smithsonian decision. Naftali, now a senior researcher at Columbia University, said museum directors "should have red lines" and that he considered removing the Trump panel to be one of them. While it might seem inconsequential for someone in power to care about a museum's offerings, Wagner-Pacifici says Trump's outlook on history and his role in it — earlier this year, he said the Smithsonian had "come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology" — shows how important those matters are to people in authority. "You might say about that person, whoever that person is, their power is so immense and their legitimacy is so stable and so sort of monumental that why would they bother with things like this ... why would they bother to waste their energy and effort on that?" Wagner-Pacifici said. Her conclusion: "The legitimacy of those in power has to be reconstituted constantly. They can never rest on their laurels." ___

After a reference to Trump's impeachments is removed from a history museum, complex questions echo

After a reference to Trump's impeachments is removed from a history museum, complex questions echo NEW YORK (AP) — It would seem the mos...

 

VOUX SPACE © 2015 | Distributed By My Blogger Themes | Designed By Templateism.com