California
CA sues Trump administration over ‘birthright’ order
From CalMatters criminal justice reporter Nigel Duara:
Resistance state Round 2 officially began Tuesday when California filed its first lawsuit against the new Donald Trump administration.
Eighteen states, including California, filed a lawsuit in federal court, challenging an executive order by Trump that would revoke the right of guaranteed citizenship to anyone born in the country.
- California Attorney General Rob Bonta, at a Tuesday press conference: “I am deeply disappointed that we’re here, and also not at all surprised. This isn’t some theoretical legal disagreement. It would strip Americans of their most basic rights.”
Bonta and the other attorneys general are asking the court for an immediate injunction to stop the order from taking effect on Feb. 19 while they litigate the case in United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
The attorneys general sued on grounds that the order violates the Fourteenth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act by denying birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S.
“Under the order, such children born after February 19, 2025 — who would have been unquestionably deemed citizens had they been born two days ago — will lack any legal status in the eyes of the federal government,” the lawsuit asserts. “They will all be deportable, and many will be stateless. They will lose the ability to access myriad federal services that are available to their fellow Americans.”
The order would also affect how, and whether, states can provide health care to low-income children who would be denied citizenship, the lawsuit alleges. In California, that’s Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid program and the federal Children’s Health Insurance Program.
The executive order asserts that undocumented people are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., and therefore not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Daniel Farber, faculty director of UC Berkeley Law’s Center for Law, Energy, and the Environment, said the Trump administration’s argument likely faces long odds in court.
- Farber: “I think there’s virtually no support among experts for the view that people who are born in the U.S. and whose parents aren’t lawfully in the country are somehow not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”
Lawsuit tracker: With Trump’s term underway, CalMatters is tracking the lawsuits California is filing against the administration. Check it out here.
California
Judge blocks California mask ban for federal agents
Trump on immigration: ‘We can use a little bit of a softer touch’
In an interview with NBC News, President Donald Trump said his administration “can use a little bit of a softer touch” when it comes to immigration.
A federal judge has blocked California from enforcing a new law that would ban federal immigration agents and other law enforcement officers from wearing face coverings.
The Department of Justice sued to strike down the ban in November after it was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in September. In a ruling on Feb. 9, U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder preliminarily struck down the law and upheld another California law that requires federal officers to display their identification while performing their official duties.
The Trump administration hailed the ruling as a win, with Attorney General Pam Bondi calling it a “key court victory.” The DOJ argued in the lawsuit that immigration agents “face a real threat of criminal liability from state officials who have made clear their intent to target federal officers and disrupt federal law enforcement activities, including federal immigration enforcement.”
“These federal agents are harassed, doxxed, obstructed, and attacked on a regular basis just for doing their jobs. We have no tolerance for it,” Bondi said in her statement on Feb. 9.
Newsom also counted the ruling to uphold the identification law as “a clear win for the rule of law,” and said “no badge and no name mean no accountability.”
In the ruling, Snyder said that the federal government would likely prove the mask ban to be unconstitutional because it treated state officers differently than federal officers; the law included local law enforcement officers and federal officers but not state officers.
The ruling comes as political tension is heightened over President Donald Trump’s surge of immigration enforcement actions in primarily Democratic-led states and cities. Weeks of protests have spread nationally after federal officers fatally shot two U.S. citizens, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, in Minneapolis, where the administration recently announced the departure of hundreds of immigration enforcement personnel. In videos and photos, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal agents are routinely seen wearing face coverings while conducting operations, making arrests and clashing with protesters.
Los Angeles has also been a target for enhanced immigration enforcement, which sparked protests that at times turned violent last summer.
Scott Wiener, the state senator who introduced the mask ban, said in a statement that he will introduce new legislation to include state officers, and said the ruling demonstrates that California has the right to block officers from covering their faces if state officers are included.
“Today’s federal court ruling is a huge win: The Court ruled that California has the power to protect our community by banning officers, including federal agents, from wearing masks and thus inflicting terror and shielding themselves from accountability,” Wiener, a Democrat whose area of representation includes San Francisco, said.
“ICE and Border Patrol are covering their faces to maximize their terror campaign and to insulate themselves from accountability. We won’t let them get away with it,” Wiener said.
Contributing: Reuters
California
After US Judge Blocks California’s ICE Mask Ban, Scott Wiener Says He Will Make It Enforceable | KQED
He continued: “People do not want masked law enforcement in their communities, people want to be able to see who is patrolling their communities, people understand that if ICE and any other law enforcement wear ski masks, that creates an atmosphere of impunity and terror, and prevents accountability.”
But it’s not clear if Newsom would sign such a bill. In response to the ruling, his press office wrote on social media, “Mr. Wiener rejected our proposed fixes to his bill — language that was later included in the identification bill the court upheld today. He chose a different approach, and today the court found his approach unlawful.”
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi celebrated the ruling on X, calling it “ANOTHER key court victory.”
“Following our arguments, a district court in California BLOCKED the enforcement of a law that would have banned federal agents from wearing masks to protect their identities,” Bondi wrote. “We will continue fighting and winning in court for President Trump’s law-and-order agenda.”
In court on Monday, Snyder dismissed several arguments the Trump administration has made to justify why agents should be allowed to mask.
She noted that there are no federal laws or regulations that require federal law enforcement officers to wear facial coverings or conceal their identity, and “in fact, some federal laws and regulations require visible identification in certain circumstances.”
Historically, she noted, federal officers have not been masked.
Snyder also found that the federal government “has not met its burden to show that enforcement of the challenged provisions … would interfere with or take control of federal law enforcement operations,” — comparing them to traffic laws that dictate how a federal officer may drive on state roads.
And she rejected the argument that bills will put officers at risk of attacks and physical harm, noting that the potential harms cited in court — including doxing, threats and assault — are all crimes themselves.
“A rule that prohibits law enforcement officers from wearing masks or requires them to have visible identification does not facilitate or enable criminals to harm law enforcement officers,” she wrote. To the contrary, she added later, the “presence of masked and unidentifiable individuals, including law enforcement, is more likely to heighten the sense of insecurity for all.”
And in a clear rebuke to statements made by Vice President JD Vance and others after the Minneapolis shootings, Snyder noted that, “The law is clear that federal officers do not have absolute immunity from state prosecution.”
California
Kaiser Permanente pharmacy, lab workers in Southern California to join ongoing labor strike
Some of Kaiser Permanente’s pharmacies and labs across Southern California will be closed on Monday as more health care union workers join the ongoing labor strike that started about three weeks ago.
The company has already been shuffling its staff since the first strike began and is trying to reassure patients that care will continue.
More than 30,000 nurses and healthcare professionals who are part of the United Nurses Association of California went on strike last month, pushing for higher wages and increased staffing. Pharmacy and lab employees who are trying to get a new contract of their own will be joining the picket lines. They say Kaiser management walked away from the bargaining table last month, and that’s why more than 3,000 of their members in Southern California have been forced to take this action.
When Kaiser was given notice about this new UFCW strike, they put out a statement that read in part:
“Our Alliance employees already earn, on average, about 16% more than similar roles at other health care organizations, and in some markets, as much as 24% more. Our current proposal builds on that leadership position and keeps Kaiser Permanente among the best-paying employees in health care.”
The company went on to say that hospitals and nearly all medical offices will remain open through these dual strikes. But some appointments may have to be virtual and procedures that aren’t urgent may be postponed.
Kaiser has called the strike “unnecessary” and “disruptive,” claiming it is counterproductive in reaching a contract agreement.
Members of the United Nurses Associations of California/Union of Health Care Professions (UNAC/UHCP), which represents healthcare workers, went on strike on Jan. 26 after stalled negotiations, according to union leaders.
The unions filed an unfair labor practice charge against Kaiser, alleging the company walked away from the bargaining table and accused them of trying to bypass the agreed-upon national bargaining process.
-
Indiana1 week ago13-year-old rider dies following incident at northwest Indiana BMX park
-
Politics5 days agoWhite House says murder rate plummeted to lowest level since 1900 under Trump administration
-
Massachusetts1 week agoTV star fisherman, crew all presumed dead after boat sinks off Massachusetts coast
-
Indiana1 week ago13-year-old boy dies in BMX accident, officials, Steel Wheels BMX says
-
Politics7 days agoTrump unveils new rendering of sprawling White House ballroom project
-
Alabama3 days agoGeneva’s Kiera Howell, 16, auditions for ‘American Idol’ season 24
-
San Francisco, CA6 days agoExclusive | Super Bowl 2026: Guide to the hottest events, concerts and parties happening in San Francisco
-
Texas1 week agoLive results: Texas state Senate runoff