Proponents of a tax on California billionaires vowed on Thursday to move forward with their November ballot measure despite mounting opposition from many of the state’s most powerful political forces.

A labor union spent $31 million gathering signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot in an effort to offset federal healthcare funding cuts that will affect millions of California’s most vulnerable residents. A representative for the campaign supporting the ballot measure pushed back at opposition to the effort as self-entitled wealthy Californians and entrenched Sacramento interests.

“While a few morally bankrupt billionaires and their buddies in Sacramento want to see California’s hospitals close, and tax breaks for billionaires protected — I assure you, the vast majority of voters do not,” said Debru Carthan, a spokesperson for the Billionaire Tax Now Coalition, which is funded by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, the sponsor of the proposal.

California Secretary of State Shirley Weber is expected to officially certify the measure to appear on the Nov. 3 ballot on Thursday evening.

Carthan said their effort has support in public opinion polls, and from lawmakers, unions, community organizations and volunteers across the state, “something the billionaires and their buddies will never have.” And she criticized Gov. Gavin Newsom for opposing the measure, saying that he is in “lock-step” with President Trump and billionaires.

“Gov. Newsom has no plan,” Carthan said during a Thursday evening news conference. “He has no plan to stop emergency rooms from closing. He has no plan for your healthcare costs. He has no plan to make sure that your family doesn’t have to drive further and wait longer to get medical care. Gov. Newsom has no plan to fix one of Trump’s deadliest domestic policy blunders.”

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) also attacked the governor, though not by name.

“If you’re opposed to this tax, you’re on the side of trickle-down economics,” Khanna said. “You’re protecting the very, very rich, as opposed to standing up for the working class.”

Both Khanna and Newsom are considering running for president in 2028.

The Newsom administration did not respond to a request for comment Thursday evening.

A coalition of healthcare, education, public safety, housing, business and labor leaders opposed to the proposal warned that it would make the state’s notoriously unstable budget even more unpredictable.

“The dangerous wealth tax directly threatens vital funding for education and schools, healthcare and clinics, public safety, and infrastructure projects by making California’s revenue even more volatile,” the leaders of the California Medical Assn., the California Primary Care Assn. and the California School Boards Assn. said in a statement. “That’s why so many leaders – both Democrats and Republicans – are joining us and saying NO. We look forward to ensuring voters have the facts, know the stakes, and resoundingly reject this reckless experiment in November.”

Supporters of the one-time proposed 5% tax on the assets of the state’s wealthiest residents pitched the effort as a stop-gap measure to offset devastating federal healthcare funding cuts passed by the GOP-led Congress and signed by President Trump nearly one year ago. The federal legislation is expected to result in $100 billion in cuts that would affect California’s most vulnerable residents.

The proposed tax, which would be retroactive to billionaires who lived in the state as of Jan. 1, drew predictable opposition from the wealthy, notably Silicon Valley tech leaders.

But it notably divided liberals. While Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Khanna supported the proposal, Newsom was among the Democrats who opposed it because of fears about the potential impact on the state’s volatile budget.

Despite being the fourth largest economy in the world — the home of Hollywood and Silicon Valley — California’s budget is extremely dependent on the state’s most prosperous residents.

Newsom and others who generally support increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans also argued that the proposed billionaire tax in California was poorly crafted and that any such levies ought to be enacted nationally, because varying state policies would be ineffective.

Opponents also argued that the political priority in the 2026 midterm election should be squarely focused on efforts to make sure Democrats regain control of Congress to serve as a counter balance during the final two years of Trump’s presidency.

“It’s disappointing. This is a critical election where we need to concentrate on flipping the house and undoing the damage that was done” by Trump’s legislation that led to the healthcare funding cuts, said Jodi Hicks, chief executive and president of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. The wealth tax “is short term and doesn’t address what is the long-term problem. And I’m not even sure the policy is a viable solution. It’s so critical to be sending the right message — holding Congress accountable and how we need to find long-term solutions to make sure Californians have access to healthcare.”

Dave Regan, the president of SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, lashed out at the leadership of Planned Parenthood as “out of touch” with their workers and their patients.

Rob Lapsley, co-chair of Californians Against Tax Increases and president of the California Business Roundtable, argued that the proposed wealth tax would ultimately affect every Californian.

“Strip away the spin, and this measure forces every California taxpayer, not just billionaires, to file a sworn declaration of their net worth with the Franchise Tax Board under penalty of perjury,” Lapsley said in a statement. “And it hands the Legislature the power to extend the wealth tax to all Californians and every kind of property, including home equity, retirement savings without ever returning to the voters – effectively gutting” voter-approved caps on property tax increases.

Supporters of the tax submitted nearly 1.6 million signatures in April to qualify the proposal for the ballot, roughly double the number required. However, support for the effort has grown increasingly shaky. Newsom’s team created a broad coalition of opponents, including healthcare and education activists, that undercut the foundational argument for the tax.

The union that crafted the proposal responded last week by proposing a legislative alternative that would create a 2% tax on billionaire’s assets. It was flatly refused by the Newsom administration. No deal was reached by the Thursday evening deadline for the union to withdraw the proposal from the November ballot.

Two efforts that were crafted to sink the proposed billionaire tax — dubbed poison pills — also qualified for the Nov. 3 ballot, according to the California Secretary of State’s office. One would bar new state taxes on personal property, while the other prohibits any new taxes being exempted from existing state spending rules and to be regularly audited. If the billionaire tax proposal is approved by voters but either of the other proposals receives more votes, the tax measure would be voided.

“We will not allow California’s most vulnerable patients to be used as political pawns,” said Francisco Silva, president and CEO of the California Primary Care Assn. “Our broad coalition will mount an aggressive campaign to educate voters, defeat this reckless initiative, and protect care for millions of patients.”

The proposed billionaire tax would apply to more than 200 Californians, some of whom proactively left the state or moved their companies out of California because of the proposal.

The prospect of the wealthy fleeing the state is among the reasons that prominent Democrats such as Newsom opposed it, given California’s budget being so reliant on the state’s most prosperous residents.

Sergey Brin, a co-founder of Google, is among the billionaires who have reportedly moved out of California because of the tax proposal. He donated at least $82 million to an organization that is funding efforts to invalidate the proposed billionaire tax.

Ballot measure proponents had a Thursday evening deadline to withdraw their proposals.

Other policy proposals that will appear on the Nov. 3 ballot include:

• Requiring government-issued voter identification to cast ballots in elections.
• Reforming the California Environmental Quality Act, once a third-rail in Democratic politics that has become increasingly scrutinized in the rebuilding in the aftermath of the Palisades and Eaton wildfires.
• Creating a $11.3-billion affordable housing bond.

Two notable proposals were pulled off the ballot after negotiations between the California Hospital Assn. and labor unions:

• An effort to limit healthcare executives’ compensation.
• A union proposal by the same union backing the billionaire tax that would have required many healthcare clinics to spend 90% of their revenue to serve low-income and underserved residents.

A federal judge has tossed the Trump administration’s lawsuit against four New Jersey sanctuary cities, ruling the Justice Department targeted local policies that largely mirror a statewide immigration directive — meaning a court victory wouldn’t eliminate restrictions on ICE cooperation.

U.S. District Judge Evelyn Padin of the District of New Jersey, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, on Wednesday dismissed the Department of Justice’s lawsuit against Newark, Hoboken, Jersey City and Paterson, ruling the federal government lacked standing because striking down the cities’ policies would not remedy its alleged injuries.

“The Federal Government’s case has a fundamental flaw — it treats the Challenged Policies as though they operate in isolation. They do not,” Padin wrote. “New Jersey’s Immigrant Trust Directive is a statewide directive that, like the Challenged Policies, limits voluntary cooperation with federal civil immigration enforcement beyond what the law requires.”

The lawsuit was part of President Donald Trump’s renewed immigration crackdown following his return to office. Since declaring a national emergency at the southern border on Jan. 20, 2025, the administration has aggressively targeted so-called sanctuary jurisdictions, arguing that local policies limiting cooperation with ICE obstruct federal immigration enforcement and violate the Constitution.

DHS TORCHES NEW JERSEY’S PROFANE ‘F—ICE ACT’ AS ASSAULTS ON AGENTS SKYROCKET 1,300%

The Justice Department filed the lawsuit in May 2025, arguing the four cities’ sanctuary policies violate the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause by interfering with federal immigration enforcement, including limiting voluntary cooperation with ICE, restricting information sharing, declining to honor certain immigration detainers and barring participation in civil immigration enforcement beyond what federal law requires.

Newark, Hoboken and Jersey City each adopted executive orders declaring themselves “fair and welcoming” or “sanctuary” cities, while Paterson implemented police procedures designed to comply with New Jersey’s immigrant protections. The cities have argued the policies preserve community trust and allow local police to focus on state and local crime rather than federal civil immigration enforcement.

But Padin did not address the question of whether the sanctuary policies are constitutional. Instead, she ruled the federal government lacked standing because New Jersey’s Immigrant Trust Directive independently imposes many of the same restrictions on law enforcement agencies across the state.

GOP CANDIDATE RIPS BLUE STATE DIRECTIVE MEDDLING IN POLICE FORCE’S COOPERATION WITH ICE: ‘HANDCUFFED’

The directive, first issued under former Gov. Phil Murphy in 2018 and codified into state law by Gov. Mikie Sherrill earlier this year, limits when state and local police can cooperate with federal immigration authorities on civil immigration enforcement.

Because the statewide directive wasn’t challenged in this case, Padin concluded that even if she struck down the cities’ policies, many of the same restrictions would remain in place.

“Even if the Court enjoined the Challenged Policies,” she wrote, “its injuries would persist.”

NEW JERSEY’S BAN ON PRIVATELY OPERATED ICE DETENTION CENTERS STRUCK DOWN BY COURT

That directive has already survived multiple legal challenges. The Third Circuit upheld it after New Jersey counties argued it conflicted with federal immigration law, and the Justice Department later sued New Jersey directly over the policy, lost and did not appeal.

“No judgment here could invalidate the ITD or relieve municipal law enforcement officers of their independent obligation to follow it,” Padin wrote.

The opinion also faulted the government for failing to identify concrete injuries caused solely by the cities’ policies. While the Justice Department cited several instances in which ICE detainers allegedly were ignored, every example involved the Essex County Correctional Facility, a county-operated jail that is not a defendant in the lawsuit and is governed by the statewide directive.

“The Federal Government must plead facts that substantiate its feared harm,” Padin wrote.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Padin dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, meaning the administration isn’t barred from bringing the case again if it can overcome the standing issue.

The Justice Department declined to comment.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Trump administration may end the Temporary Protected Status granted to more than 350,000 Haitians and Syrians whose home countries remain unsafe.

In a 6-3 decision, the court’s conservative majority said Congress gave the administration, not judges, the power to cancel or renew this temporary protection for non-citizens who are living and working here.

In a second win Thursday for the Trump administration, the court also upheld the administration’s policy of blocking asylum seekers at the southern border.

By the same 6-3 vote, the court said migrants do not have a right to apply for asylum if they are not already in the United States.

The decision on Temporary Protected Status could affect up to 1.3 million non-citizens who are in the country.

In 1990, Congress authorized this emergency humanitarian relief for non-citizens whose home countries were wracked by armed conflict, natural disasters or other extraordinary disruptions.

Under the law, the Department of Homeland Security may grant this protection for 6, 12 or 18 months and either renew or extend it for a similar period.

But this legal authority has been under dispute since Trump returned to the White House last year and targeted the 1.3 million people with TPS from 17 countries who were living in the United States.

Trump’s lawyers said the law made clear there was “no judicial review” of the government’s decision to cancel the grant of temporary protection.

However, immigrant rights lawyers argued the government failed in its duty to consult the State Department and assess whether it was safe for migrants to return home.

Repeatedly, U.S. district judges agreed with the challengers and ruled the administration’s decisions were “arbitrary” and unreasonable. But in nearly every case, the Supreme Court granted emergency appeals from the administration and set aside those orders.

Since TPS was created, the government has ended the protected designation for citizens of 18 countries.

DHS under then-Secretary Kristi Noem ended TPS for Honduras, Nicaragua, Afghanistan and Venezuela. A spokesperson for the agency previously said the Haiti designation became “a de facto amnesty program” and that allowing Syrians to remain is contrary to national interest.

Advocates for the immigrants argue that the administration failed to conduct the required process to properly evaluate each country’s conditions and instead acted on political grounds driven by racial animus.

State Department travel advisories for both countries warn people against traveling to either because of the risk of terrorism, kidnapping and widespread violence. But Federal Register notices announcing the terminations said country conditions had improved enough.

Recently released internal documents show that DHS decided to terminate protections for Haitians without any input from the State Department.

Citing the documents, which were obtained by the National TPS Alliance in a separate lawsuit, lawyers for the Haitians asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the case and send it back to lower courts. They argued that the justices should first consider the communications before issuing a decision.

Internal emails show that homeland security officials sought a recommendation from the State Department in May 2025, ahead of Noem’s early June deadline on whether to extend protections for Haiti. But by the time Noem signed what appears to be a final decision memo, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services had not received input from the State Department, the emails show.

“State recommendation for Haiti TPS has not come in despite of many outreach,” a homeland security deputy assistant secretary wrote in a June 2, 2025, email. A recommendation “would be helpful to have,” the person added.

Eleven days later, a USCIS project manager wrote in an email that Noem “recently elected to terminate Haiti without country conditions from DOS.”

USCIS initially recommended automatically extending protections before Homeland Security decided to terminate them, earlier versions of the memo indicate.

The June decision was blocked by a federal judge. In November, DHS issued another notice terminating TPS protections for Haitians.

That time, according a previously publicized email, a homeland security senior counselor asked a State Department official for the agency’s views on the country conditions in Haiti. The official, Spencer Chretien, didn’t address the country conditions but responded that “there would be no foreign policy concerns.”

Lawyers for the Haitians argued that response didn’t meet the legal standard for a sufficient consultation, though the Trump administration disagreed.