Connect with us

Business

Commentary: The UC faculty just won a big court victory over Trump. But why didn’t UC join their lawsuit?

Published

on

Commentary: The UC faculty just won a big court victory over Trump. But why didn’t UC join their lawsuit?

On Nov. 14 the faculty and staff of the University of California won a significant victory over President Trump in his effort to fine UCLA $1.2 billion for resisting his efforts to bend the university to his ideological demands.

Finding that the plaintiffs submitted “overwhelming evidence” that Trump and his cabinet members pursued a campaign of cutting off government funding with the goal of “bringing universities to their knees and forcing them to change their ideological tune,” federal Judge Rita Lin of San Francisco blocked the fine and nearly $600 million in funding cuts. She ordered the money to start flowing again.

Lin’s ruling resembles those by other federal judges who blocked Trump’s funding cutoffs. Faculty and staff representatives, with the American Assn. of University Professors as the lead plaintiff, justly celebrated the UC injunction, even though it’s likely that the government will appeal.

It may be hard for an educational institution to ride this out until 2029. For an institution that budgets on an annual basis, three years is a long time.

— Dan Schnur, UC Berkeley

Advertisement

But two entities with an interest in the case’s outcome have been silent: the state of California and UC itself. Neither joined the AAUP lawsuit, which was filed in September, and neither has commented since.

It’s not as though the state and the university are blind to the potential impact of Trump’s funding cutoff. When Trump’s demands and threats were made public in August, Gov. Newsom termed them “extortion” and threatened to sue. UC President James B. Milliken said the announced cuts would be a “death knell for innovative work that saves lives, grows our economy and fortifies our national security.”

Addressing the UC Board of Regents at its meeting Wednesday, Milliken stated that the university system still faces the loss of more than $1 billion in federal research funding, but didn’t mention the AAUP lawsuit.

Advertisement

UC reportedly has continued negotiations with the White House. A UC spokesperson wouldn’t comment on any such talks, even to confirm them. A spokesman for Gov. Newsom said he’s closely watching the numerous court cases challenging Trump’s funding threats, and “he’s pleased with the recent court rulings affirming that Trump’s assault on California’s world-class research institutions was reckless and illegal.”

Let’s keep in mind what’s at stake in this battle. The University of California is the premier public university system in the nation. It’s the second-largest employer in the state and one of the most important providers of healthcare. The productivity of its research is spectacular. Much of the universities’ work is supported by the government — $17 billion a year, including matching Medicaid and Medicare funding and student aid.

“We were hopeful that the UC system would defend itself legally,” says Veena Dubal, a law professor at UC Irvine and general counsel to the AAUP. After UCLA published the administration’s 27-page list of demands in August, she says, the AAUP decided it couldn’t wait any longer: “We couldn’t not sue, they were so outrageous.”

The demands included bans on diversity programs, public demonstrations across much of the campus and provisions for transgender students. UCLA also would be required to refuse admission to foreign students “likely to engage in anti-Western, anti-American, or antisemitic disruptions,” and to comply with Trump’s ban on “gender ideology” — that is, defining males and females as anything other than the sex they were assigned at birth.

The state and the UC system haven’t entirely avoided legal jousting with Trump. California led seven other states into federal court to challenge the Dept. of Education’s termination of $65 million in grants funding programs that included diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. They won at the trial level, but the Supreme Court stayed that ruling on grounds that the case may have been brought in the wrong federal court.

Advertisement

The regents also joined a lawsuit brought by the Assn. of American Universities and 13 other universities challenging the Dept. of Health and Human Services limit on reimbursements for overhead costs on government-funded research, which would cost universities billions of dollars. They won at the trial level, but the government appealed that ruling. The state also sued Trump or participated in lawsuits on other topics.

One can understand, even sympathize with, the reluctance of UC to pursue a courtroom fight over Trump’s demands. UC faces the same quandary as other institutions that have tried to reach accords with the administration.

Trump has almost unlimited tools at his discretion to harass his adversaries for years to come through endless “investigations” of purported statutory violations, among other things. Courtroom battles take time and money, resources that may never be recovered. Plus with a pro-Trump majority on the Supreme Court, ultimate victory is nothing like a certainty.

And while Trump’s term won’t last beyond January 2029, at which point his anti-university campaign might end, that may be cold comfort for institutions facing an immediate financial crisis.

“It may be hard for an educational institution to ride this out until 2029,” says Dan Schnur, a veteran political consultant on the faculty of UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies. “For an institution that budgets on an annual basis, three years is a long time, and for a student, it’s three-fourths of an undergraduate experience.”

Advertisement

That brings us to the case the UC faculty and staff made in court. It’s as clear and concise a description of the noxious campaign Trump has conducted against American higher education that one will find anywhere. It was accepted almost in its entirety by Judge Lin.

The administration consistently has portrayed the funding cutoffs as a response to what it claims to be pervasive antisemitism at UCLA and other targeted campuses. Yet as federal Judge Allison D. Burroughs of Boston found in September when she blocked Trump’s grant terminations against Harvard, it’s “difficult to conclude anything other than that [the government] used antisemitism as a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault on this country’s premier universities.”

Indeed, the UC plaintiffs show that the funding cutoffs were motivated purely by ideology, and flagrantly infringed on free speech rights. Just a week after Trump’s inauguration, the White House issued an order suspending all financial disbursements that involved “DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal.” (“DEI” refers to programs aimed at diversity, equity and inclusion, a favored target of the right.)

The faculty lawsuit quotes Leo Terrell, an assistant attorney general for civil rights and a named defendant, telling Fox News, “The academic system in this country has been hijacked by the left, has been hijacked by the Marxists.” He said, “We’re gonna bankrupt these universities. We’re gonna take away every single dollar.” In an interview he said he had “targeted 10 schools. Columbia, Harvard, Michigan, UCLA, USC… We’re going to take away [their] funding.”

The lawsuit positions the administration’s campaign against UCLA against its similar attacks on funding at Columbia, Brown and Harvard. It also points to the folly of trying to settle with Trump out of court.

Advertisement

Columbia was among the first universities to settle with Trump — it would ultimately agree to $221 million in payments and to give the government extraordinary oversight of its hiring, pedagogical and social policies. Initially that was a response in March to a government threat to block some $400 million in federal grants.

But even after its initial capitulation in March Trump continued to block $1.2 billion in funding until Columbia agreed to additional demands in July.

As Judge Lin described the government campaign against UCLA and other universities launched by the White House, it starts when “one or more … agencies open civil rights investigations into a university…. Before the investigations are concluded, Funding Agencies cancel large amounts of federal funding.” Then the Justice Department offers to settle with the targets “in exchange for further burdening faculty, staff, and student speech.”

It’s theoretically possible that the Trump administration could make its funding cutoffs stick if it follows the procedures enshrined in law for terminating federal grants (and it may yet prevail in appeals to the Supreme Court).

The rules require government agencies to issue a notice of possible violation and attempt to negotiate a settlement and hold a hearing, then file a report with the House and Senate specifying “the circumstances and grounds for such action” and wait at least 30 days more before canceling any funding. The cancellations can apply only to the specific program deemed to be violating the law.

Advertisement

The goal of these safeguards, Lin observed, is to protect grant recipients from “‘vindictive’ or ‘punitive’” actions by the government. In these cases, the government followed none of the mandated procedures.

The administration‘s defense, in part, is that the funding cutoffs are entirely within its discretion and can’t be reviewed by a judge, assertions Lin specifically rejected. The administration also stated that the August demand letter to UCLA was merely an “opening settlement offer” in ongoing “confidential settlement negotiations” with the university.

Given the findings from federal judges that Trump has flouted the legal safeguards against abrupt and arbitrary grant cancellations in favor of illicit bullying, the question facing universities trying to negotiate their way out is: What is there to negotiate? The record so far indicates that no settlement will fully satisfy Trump or his anti-woke warriors; only judges can bring the campaign to a halt.

It’s certainly true that in the short run, Trump’s targets will suffer great pain. He knows well that they’re vulnerable to blunt force. “With every day that passes,” Lin observed, “UCLA continues to be denied the chance to win new grants, ratcheting up [the government’s] pressure campaign.”

In the long run, however, there are limits to how much an educational institution can concede.

Advertisement

One is tempted to recall what Michael Corleone said in “The Godfather Part II” when he was being bullied by the corrupt Sen. Pat Geary into paying a bribe: “My offer is this,” he said. “Nothing.”

It may not be so easy for even powerful universities to take such an uncompromising stand. But it may be necessary.

Business

In-N-Out Burger outlets in Southern California hit by counterfeit bill scam

Published

on

In-N-Out Burger outlets in Southern California hit by counterfeit bill scam

Two people allegedly used $100 counterfeit bills at dozens of In-N-Out Burger restaurants in Southern California in a wide-reaching scam.

Glendale Police officials said in a statement Friday that 26-year-old Tatiyanna Foster of Long Beach was taken into custody last month. Another suspect, 24-year-old Auriona Lewis, also of Long Beach, was arrested in October.

Police released images of $100 bills used to purchase a $2.53 order of fries and a $5.93 order of a Flying Dutchman.

The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office charged Lewis with felony counterfeiting and grand theft in November.

Advertisement

Elizabeth Megan Lashley-Haynes, Lewis’s public defender, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Glendale police said that Lewis was arrested in Palmdale in an operation involving the U.S. Marshals Task Force. Foster is expected in court later this month, officials said.

”Lewis was found to be in possession of counterfeit bills matching those used in the Glendale incident, along with numerous gift cards and transaction receipts believed to be connected to similar fraudulent activity,” according to a police statement.

A representative for In-N-Out Burger told KTLA-TV that restaurants in Riverside, San Bernardino and San Diego counties were also targeted by the alleged scam.

“Their dedication and expertise resulted in the identification and apprehension of the suspects, helping to protect our business and our communities,” In-N-Out’s Chief Operations Officer Denny Warnick said. “We greatly value the support of law enforcement and appreciate the vital role they play in making our communities stronger and safer places to live.”

Advertisement

The company, opened in 1948 in Baldwin Park, has restaurants in nine states.

An Oakland location closed in 2024, with the owner blaming crime and slow police response times.

Company chief executive Lynsi Snyder announced last year that she planned to relocate her family to Tennessee, although the burger chain’s headquarters will remain in California.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Newsom’s budget includes $200 million to make up for Trump’s canceled EV rebates, among other climate items

Published

on

Newsom’s budget includes 0 million to make up for Trump’s canceled EV rebates, among other climate items

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday doubled down on California’s commitment to electric vehicles with proposed rebates intended to backfill federal tax credits canceled by the Trump administration.

The plan would allocate $200 million in one-time special funds for a new point-of-sale incentive program for light-duty zero-emissions vehicles. It was part of a sweeping $348.9-billion state budget proposal released Friday, which also included items to address air pollution and worsening wildfires, amid a projected $3-billion state deficit.

EVs have become a flashpoint in California’s battle against the Trump administration, which moved last year to repeal the state’s long-held authority to set strict tailpipe emission standards and eventually ban the sale of new gas powered cars.

Last year, Trump ended federal tax credits of up to $7,500 for EV customers that were part of President Biden’s 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. In September, his administration also let lapse federal authorization for California’s Clean Air Vehicle decal program, which allowed solo EV drivers to use carpool lanes.

Advertisement

“Despite federal interference, the governor maintains his commitment to protecting public health and achieving California’s world leading climate agenda,” Lindsay Buckley, spokesperson for the California Air Resources Board, said in an email. “This incentive program will help continue the state’s ZEV momentum, especially with the federal administration eliminating the federal EV tax credit and carpool lane access.”

Newsom had previously flip-flopped on this idea, first vowing to restore a state program that provided up to $7,500 to buy clean cars and then walking it back in September. That same month, a group of five automakers including Honda, Rivian, Hyundai, Volkswagen and Audi wrote a letter urging Newsom and state legislators to establish a $5,000 EV tax rebate to replace the lost federal incentives, Politico reported.

During his State of the State speech Thursday — one year after the devastating Palisades and Eaton fires in Los Angeles — Newsom said California “refuse[s] to be bystanders” while China and other nations take the lead on electric vehicles and the clean energy transition. He touted the state’s investments in solar, hydrogen, wind and nuclear power, as well as its recent move away from the use of any coal-fired power.

“We must continue our prudent fiscal management, funding our reserves, and continuing the investments Californians rely on, from education to public safety, all while preparing for Trump’s volatility outside our control,” the governor said in a statement. “This is what responsible governance looks like.”

Several environmental groups had been urging Newsom to invest more in clean air and clean vehicle programs, which they say are critical to the state’s ambitious goals for human health and the environment. Transportation is the largest source of climate and air pollution in California and is responsible for more than a third of global warming emissions, said Daniel Barad, Western states policy manager with the nonprofit Union of Concerned Scientists.

Advertisement

“As federal attacks threaten California’s authority to protect public health, incentives are more essential than ever to scale up clean cars and trucks,” Barad said. “The governor and legislative leaders must act now to fully fund zero-emission transportation and pursue new revenue to grow and sustain climate investments.”

Katelyn Roedner Sutter, California senior director with the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund, called it “an essential step to save money for Californians, cut harmful pollution, spur innovation, and support the global competitiveness of our auto industry.”

While the budget proposal does not include significant new spending proposals, it contains other line items relating to climate and the environment. Among them are plans to continue implementing Proposition 4, the $10-billion climate bond approved by voters in 2024 for programs geared toward wildfire resilience, safe drinking water, flood management, extreme heat mitigation and other similar efforts.

Among $2.1 billion in climate bond investments proposed this year are $58 million for wildfire prevention and hazardous fuels reduction projects in vulnerable communities, and nearly $20 million to assist homeowners with defensible space to prevent fire. Water-related investments include $232 million for flood control projects and nearly $70 million to support repairs to existing or new water conveyance projects.

The proposal also lays out how to spend money from California’s signature cap-and-trade program, which sets limits on greenhouse gas emissions and allows large polluters to buy and sell unused emission allowances at quarterly auctions. State lawmakers last year voted to extend the program through 2045 and rename it cap-and-invest.

Advertisement

The spending plan includes a new tiered structure for cap-and-invest that first funds statutory obligations such as manufacturing tax exemptions, followed by $1 billion for the high speed rail project, $750 million to support the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, and finally secondary program funding such as affordable housing and low-carbon transit options.

But while some groups applauded the budget’s broad handling of climate issues, others criticized it for leaning too heavily on volatile funding sources for environmental priorities, such as special funds and one-time allocations.

The Sierra Club called the EV incentive program a crucial investment but said too many other items were left with “patchwork strategies that make long-term planning harder.”

“Just yesterday, the Governor acknowledged in his State of the State address that the climate risk is a financial risk. That is exactly why California needs climate investments that are stable and ongoing,” said Sierra Club director Miguel Miguel.

California Environmental Voters, meanwhile, stressed that the state should continue to work toward legislation that would hold oil and gas companies liable for damages caused by their emissions — a plan known as “Make Polluters Pay” that stalled last year amid fierce lobbying and industry pressure.

Advertisement

“Instead of asking families to absorb the costs, the Legislature must look seriously at holding polluters accountable for the harm they’ve caused,” said Shannon Olivieri Hovis, California Environmental Voters’ chief strategy officer.

Sarah Swig, Newsom’s senior advisor for climate, noted that the state’s budget plan came just days after Trump withdrew the United States from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, a major global treaty signed by nearly 200 countries with the aim of addressing global warming through coordinated international action.

“California is not slowing down on climate at a time when we continue to see attack after attack from the federal government, including as recently as this week with the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the UNFCCC,” Swig told reporters Friday. “California’s leadership has never mattered more.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Abandoned shops and missing customers: Fire-scarred businesses are still stuck in the aftermath

Published

on

Abandoned shops and missing customers: Fire-scarred businesses are still stuck in the aftermath

The charred remains of the historic Pacific Palisades Business Block cast a shadow over a once-bustling shopping district along West Sunset Boulevard.

Empty lots littered with debris and ash line the street where houses and small businesses once stood. A year since the Palisades fire roared through the neighborhood, only a handful of businesses have reopened.

The Starbucks, Bank of America, and other businesses that used to operate in the century-old Business Block are gone. All that remains of the Spanish Colonial Revival building are some arches surrounding what used to be a busy retail space. The burned-out, rusty remnants of a walk-in vault squat in the center of the structure.

Nearby, the Shade Store, the Free-est clothing store, Skin Local spa, a Hastens mattress store, Sweet Laurel Bakery and the Hydration Room are among the many stores still shuttered. Local barbershop Gornik & Drucker doesn’t know if it can reopen.

“We have been going back and forth on what it would take to survive,” co-owner Leslie Gornik said. “If we open, we have to start over from scratch.”

Advertisement

Hundreds gathered around Business Block on the anniversary of he fire on Wednesday to witness a military-style white-glove ceremony to pay respects to the families who lost loved ones. Photos of those killed from the neighborhood were placed at the Palisades Village Green next door.

The Palisades fire burned for 24 days, destroying more than 6,800 structures, damaging countless others and forcing most of the neighborhood’s residents to move elsewhere. About 30 miles northeast, the Eaton fire burned more than 9,400 structures. Combined, the fires killed 31 people.

Remnants of the the Pacific Palisades Business Block, which was completed in 1924 and burned in the Palisades fire.

The few businesses that are back in Palisades serve as a beacon of hope for the community, but owners and managers say business is down and customers haven’t returned.

Advertisement

Ruby Nails & Spa, located near the Business Block, was closed for eight months before reopening in September. Now business is only half of what it was before the fires, owner Ruby Hong-Tran said.

“People come back to support but they live far away now,” she said. “All my clients, their houses burned.”

Ruby Hong-Tran, owner of Ruby Nails & Spa in Pacific Palisades, says her business is half of what it was since reopening.

Ruby Hong-Tran, owner of Ruby Nails & Spa in Pacific Palisades, says her business is half of what it was since reopening.

It took months to clean all the smoke damage from her shop. The front is still being fixed to cover up burn damage.

The firestorms destroyed swaths of other neighborhoods, including Malibu, Topanga, Sierra Madre and Altadena, where businesses and homeowners also are struggling to build back.

Advertisement

Some are figuring out whether it is worth rebuilding. Some have given up.

The Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation estimated last year that more than 1,800 small businesses were in the burn zones in Pacific Palisades, Malibu and Altadena, impacting more than 11,000 jobs.

Businesses say they often have been on their own. The Federal Emergency Management Agency tasked the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to clean up debris at private residences, some public buildings and places of worship — but not commercial properties.

Business owners had to clean up the charred debris and toxic waste on their properties. Many had to navigate complicated insurance claims and apply for emergency loans to stay afloat.

Rosie Maravilla, general manager of Anawalt’s Palisades Hardware, said damage to her store was limited, and insurance covered the cleaning, so she was able to open quickly. The store reopened just one month after the fire.

Advertisement
Rosie Maravilla, general manager of Anawalt Palisades Hardware, in front of of the store in Pacific Palisades.

Rosie Maravilla, general manager of Anawalt Palisades Hardware, in front of of the store in Pacific Palisades.

Still, sales are 35% lower than what they used to be.

“In the early days, it was bad. We weren’t making anything,” Maravilla said. “We’re lucky the company kept us employed.”

The customer base has changed. Instead of homeowners working on personal projects, the store is serving contractors working on rebuilding in the area.

An archival image of the area in Pacific Palisades hangs over the aisles in Anawalt Palisades Hardware.

An archival image of the area in Pacific Palisades hangs over the aisles in Anawalt Palisades Hardware, where business is down despite a customer base of contractors who are rebuilding.

Advertisement

Across the street from the Business Block, the Palisades Village mall was spared the flames and looks pristine, but is still closed. Shop windows are covered with tarps. Low metal gates block entry to the high-end outlets. The mall is still replacing its drywall to eliminate airborne contaminants that the fire could have spread.

All of its posh shops still are shut: Erewhon, Lululemon ,Bay Theater, Blue Ribbon Sushi, athletic apparel store Alo, Buck Mason men’s and Veronica Beard women’s boutiques.

Mall owner and developer Rick Caruso said he is spending $60 million to reopen in August.

The need to bring back businesses impacted by the fires is urgent, Caruso said, and not just to support returning residents.

“It’s critical to bring jobs back and also for the city to start creating some tax revenue to support city services,” he said. ”Leaders need to do more to speed up the rebuilding process, such as speeding up the approval of building permits and stationing building inspectors closer to burn areas.”

Advertisement
Pedestrians walk past the Erewhon market in Palisades Village that plans to reopen this year.

Pedestrians walk past the Erewhon market in Palisades Village that plans to reopen this year.

(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

Wednesday, on the anniversary of the fire, Caruso sent three light beams into the sky over the mall, which met in one stream to honor the impacted communities of Pacific Palisades, Altadena and Malibu.

The nighttime display will continue through Jan. 31.

Business Block’s history dates to 1924, when it served as a home for the community’s first ventures. In the 1980s, plans to tear it down and build a mall sparked a local uprising to save the historic symbol of the neighborhood’s vibrancy. It was designated a Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument in 1984.

Advertisement

Tiana Noble, a Starbucks spokesperson, said the landlord terminated the company’s lease when the building burned down. Bank of America said it secured a new lease to rebuild nearby.

Business Block’s fate is still unclear. Some people want to preserve its shell and turn it into a memorial.

This week, it was ringed by a fence emblazoned with the words “Empowering fresh starts together.”

Caruso said the ruins should be torn down.

“It needs to be demolished and cleaned up,” he said. “It’s an eyesore right now and a hazard. I would put grass on it and make it attractive to the community.”

Advertisement
Twisted and scorched remnants of the the Pacific Palisades Business Block still are there a year after the fire.

Twisted and scorched remnants of the the Pacific Palisades Business Block still are there a year after the fire.

A short walk from the Business Block and near a burned-down Ralphs grocery store is the Palisades Garden Cafe, one of the few places in the neighborhood to get food and drink. The small, vibrant cafe was closed for two months after the fire, during which the employees went without pay.

Manager Lita Rodriguez said business is improving, but misses the regulars.

“We used to get tons of students and teachers who live and work here,” she said. “Our customers are mostly contractors now.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending