Connect with us

News

California passes bill to ban masks for law enforcement during operations

Published

on

California passes bill to ban masks for law enforcement during operations

California state lawmakers have passed legislation that would ban most law enforcement officers from covering their faces while carrying out operations, a response to recent immigration raids in Los Angeles.

But even if the governor signs the measure into law, it’s unclear whether the state could enforce it on the federal agents who have been carrying out those raids.

It is the first such bill to be approved by a state legislature, though Democrats in Congress and lawmakers in several states, including Tennessee, Michigan, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, have introduced similar proposals calling for mask bans for law enforcement officers.

California’s legislation, approved in the Democratic-controlled legislature on Thursday, is among a number of bills state lawmakers were considering this year in response to the immigration raids.

The bill would prohibit neck gators, ski masks and other facial coverings for local and federal officers, including immigration enforcement agents, while they conduct official business. It makes exceptions for undercover agents, medical masks such as N95 respirators and tactical gear.

Advertisement

Gavin Newsom has about a month to decide whether to sign it into law. The Democratic governor has criticized federal agents’ use of masks while making arrests but in July also questioned the state’s authority over federal agents. His office said Friday it does not typically comment on pending legislation.

Proponents of the bill said the proposal is necessary, especially after the supreme court earlier this week ruled that the federal administration can resume the sweeping immigration operations for now in Los Angeles.

Assembly member Juan Carrillo, vice-chair of the Latino caucus, said the decision is “effectively allowing federal agents to stop suspects based solely on their race, language or job”.

“How is anyone supposed to reasonably believe that they are law enforcement officers and not masked individuals trying to kidnap you?” he said prior to the vote. “Imagine the absolute fear of being pulled over at gunpoint by a group of masked individuals.”

Supporters also cited an opinion from constitutional law expert Erwin Chemerinsky at the University of California, Berkeley to defend the proposal. A state cannot directly regulate the federal government, he wrote in an opinion piece for the Sacramento Bee, but that does not mean federal employees do not have to follow state rules “unless doing so would significantly interfere with the performance of their duties. For example, while on the job, federal employees must stop at red lights.”

Advertisement

“ICE agents have never before worn masks when apprehending people, and that never has posed a problem. Nor have other officers of local, state and federal law enforcement faced dangers from the public because they don’t wear masks in the streets,” he wrote.

Republican lawmakers and law enforcement agencies said the legislation would only make the job more dangerous for officers.

“Bad guys wear masks because they don’t want to get caught. Good guys wear masks because they don’t want to get killed,” said the state Republican senator Kelly Seyarto on Thursday.

The increase in high-profile immigration enforcement was already contentious between those opposed to the actions of Trump’s administration and those in support of them. The sight of masked agents carrying it out is creating a whole new level of conflict, in a way that has no real comparison in the US history of policing.

Trump administration officials have consistently defended the practice, saying that immigration agents have faced strident and increasing harassment in public and online as they have gone about their enforcement in service of Trump’s drive toward mass deportation, and hiding their identities is for their and their families’ safety.

Advertisement

Democrats and others, including several state attorneys general, have pushed back, saying the use of face masks generates public fear and should be halted.

News

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

Published

on

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

The Supreme Court

Win McNamee/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Win McNamee/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Monday intervened in New York’s redistricting process, blocking a lower court decision that would likely have flipped a Republican congressional district into a Democratic district.    
  
At issue is the midterm redrawing of New York’s 11th congressional district, including Staten Island and a small part of Brooklyn. The district is currently held by a Republican, but on Jan. 21, a state Supreme Court judge ruled that the current district dilutes the power of Black and Latino voters in violation of the state constitution.  
  
GOP Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, who represents the district, and the Republican co-chair of the state Board of Elections promptly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to block the redrawing as an unconstitutional “racial gerrymander.” New York’s congressional election cycle was set to officially begin Feb. 24, the opening day for candidates to seek placement on the ballot.  
  
As in this year’s prior mid-decade redistricting fights — in Texas and California — the Trump administration backed the Republicans.   
 
Voters and the State of New York contended it’s too soon for the Supreme Court to wade into this dispute. New York’s highest state court has not issued a final judgment, so the voters asserted that if the Supreme Court grants relief now “future stay applicants will see little purpose in waiting for state court rulings before coming to this Court” and “be rewarded for such gamesmanship.” The state argues this is an issue for “New York courts, not federal courts” to resolve, and there is sufficient time for the dispute to be resolved on the merits. 
  
The court majority explained the decision to intervene in 101 words, which the three dissenting liberal justices  summarized as “Rules for thee, but not for me.” 
 
The unsigned majority order does not explain the Court’s rationale. It says only how long the stay will last, until the case moves through the New York State appeals courts. If, however, the losing party petitions and the court agrees to hear the challenge, the stay extends until the final opinion is announced. 
 
Dissenting from the decision were Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Writing for the three, Sotomayor  said that  if nonfinal decisions of a state trial court can be brought to highest court, “then every decision from any court is now fair game.” More immediately, she noted, “By granting these applications, the Court thrusts itself into the middle of every election-law dispute around the country, even as many States redraw their congressional maps ahead of the 2026 election.” 

Monday’s Supreme Court action deviates from the court’s hands-off pattern in these mid-term redistricting fights this year. In two previous cases — from Texas and California — the court refused to intervene, allowing newly drawn maps to stay in effect.  
  
Requests for Supreme Court intervention on redistricting issues has been a recurring theme this term, a trend that is likely to grow.  Earlier last month  the high court allowed California to use a voter-approved, Democratic-friendly map.  California’s redistricting came in response to a GOP-friendly redistricting plan in Texas that the Supreme Court also permitted to move forward. These redistricting efforts are expected to offset one another.     
   
But the high court itself has yet to rule on a challenge to Louisiana’s voting map, which was drawn by the state legislature after the decennial census in order to create a second majority-Black district.  Since the drawing of that second majority-black district, the state has backed away from that map, hoping to return to a plan that provides for only one majority-minority district.    
     
The Supreme Court’s consideration of the Louisiana case has stretched across two terms. The justices failed to resolve the case last term and chose to order a second round of arguments this term adding a new question: Does the state’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority district violate the constitution’s Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments’ guarantee of the right to vote and the authority of Congress to enforce that mandate?    
Following the addition of the new question, the state of Louisiana flipped positions to oppose the map it had just drawn and defended in court. Whether the Supreme Court follows suit remains to be seen. But the tone of the October argument suggested that the court’s conservative supermajority is likely to continue undercutting the 1965 Voting Rights Act.   

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Published

on

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

A minor earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 3.5 struck in Central California on Monday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 7:17 a.m. Pacific time about 6 miles northwest of Pinnacles, Calif., data from the agency shows.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Source: United States Geological Survey | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Monday, March 2 at 10:20 a.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Monday, March 2 at 11:18 a.m. Eastern.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

US says Kuwait accidentally shot down 3 American jets

Published

on

US says Kuwait accidentally shot down 3 American jets

The U.S. and Israel have been conducting strikes against targets in Iran since Saturday morning, with the aim of toppling Tehran’s clerical regime. Iran has fired back, with retaliatory assaults featuring missiles and drones targeting several Gulf countries and American bases in the Middle East.

“All six aircrew ejected safely, have been safely recovered, and are in stable condition. Kuwait has acknowledged this incident, and we are grateful for the efforts of the Kuwaiti defense forces and their support in this ongoing operation,” Central Command said.

“The cause of the incident is under investigation. Additional information will be released as it becomes available,” it added.

In a separate statement later Monday, Central Command said that American forces had been killed during combat since the strikes began.

“As of 7:30 am ET, March 2, four U.S. service members have been killed in action. The fourth service member, who was seriously wounded during Iran’s initial attacks, eventually succumbed to their injuries,” it said.

Advertisement

Major combat operations continue and our response effort is ongoing. The identities of the fallen are being withheld until 24 hours after next of kin notification,” Central Command added.

This story has been updated.

Continue Reading

Trending