Norwalk, state agree on repealing homeless shelter ban
Officials, groups react to SCOTUS ruling on LA immigration raids
Pg 02
Pg 08
VISIT HEYSOCAL.COM
Local. Relevant. Trusted.
Thursday, September 11-September 17, 2025
US Supreme Court rules in favor of roving immigration patrols
VOL. 16, 14,
Union leaders celebrate Olympic wage following failed referendum attempt
By Joe Taglieri
By City News Service
joet@beaconmedianews.com
A
U.S. Border Patrol Section Commander Gregory Bovino speaks to reporters in downtown LA near where Gov. Gavin Newsom and local officials were holding a news conference. | Photo courtesy of Governor Newsom Press Office/X
T
he U.S. Supreme Court on Monday gave a go-ahead to federal agents' "roving patrols" in the Los Angeles area targeting people suspected of breaking federal immigration laws. The nation's highest court voted 6-3 to grant the Trump administration's emergency appeal to overturn an LA federal judge's ruling in July. The lower court ordered immigration enforcement agents to cease stopping and detaining suspects based on criteria such as being present at businesses known to hire workers who are immigrants, languages spoken and skin color, race or ethnicity. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh voted with the majority and cited federal law in his majority opinion: "immigration officers ‘may briefly detain’ an individual ‘for questioning’ if they have ‘a reasonable suspicion, based on specific articulable facts, that the person being questioned ... is an alien illegally in the United States.'”
Kavanaugh wrote that "apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion" but it can be have relevance when combined with other factors. “Immigration stops based on reasonable suspicion of illegal presence have been an important component of U.S. immigration enforcement for decades, across several presidential administrations,” according to Kavanaugh. U.S. District Judge Maame E. Frimpong issued a temporary restraining order July 11 barring immigration enforcement actions based on race or ethnicity, language, location or employment. A San Francisco panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court's order. Kavanaugh, who President Donald Trump nominated to the Supreme Court in 2018, is among the six justices appointed by Republican presidents. The court's three liberal justices cast the dissenting
votes. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the Trump administration "has all but declared that all Latinos, U.S. citizens or not, who work low-wage jobs are fair game to be seized at any time, taken away from work, and held until they provide proof of their legal status to the agents' satisfaction." Sotomayor's dissenting opinion also took aim at some of Kavanaugh’s points. “Immigration agents are not conducting ‘brief stops for questioning. ... They are seizing people using firearms, physical violence, and warehouse detentions,” Sotomayor wrote. “Nor are undocumented immigrants the only ones harmed by the Government’s conduct. United States citizens are also being seized, taken from their jobs, and prevented from working to support themselves and their families.” The U.S. Justice Depart-
NO. 240
ment's appeal argued that the injunction "threatens to upend immigration officials' ability to enforce the immigration laws in the Central District of California by hanging the prospect of contempt over every investigative stop of suspected illegal aliens." Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote in his appeal, “Reasonable suspicion is a low bar — well below probable cause.” Agents can take into consideration “the totality of the circumstances," including that “illegal presence is widespread in the Central District (of California), where 1 in every 10 people is an illegal alien.” Mohammad Tajsar, senior staff attorney at the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, was critical of the ruling and the administration's effort to overturn the LA judge's order prohibiting roving patrols.
See Immigration patrols Page 32
irport and hotel workers rallied at LA City Hall Tuesday to urge enforcement of the so-called Olympic Wage ordinance, and celebrated a recent failed attempt to force a vote on the policy. The Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk announced Monday that of the 140,774 signatures submitted by the L.A. Alliance for Tourism, Jobs and Progress to force a referendum, 84,007 were deemed valid, short of the 92,998 needed. There were 2,339 signatures determined to be duplicates and 17,082 signatures were withdrawn, according to the Recorder/County Clerk. Members of the Defend the Wage LA Coalition -composed of SEIU-United Service Workers West, Unite Here Local 11, and Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy -- gathered on the south lawn steps of City Hall to discuss what the minimum wage increase signifies to the members of those unions. Later in the morning, several members gave testimony during Tuesday's City Council meeting about the significance of the ordinance. Javon Houston, a member of SEIU-USWW and Los Angeles International Airport workers, thanked council members for supporting the ordinance. "We are tired of waiting. The referendum failed. Now it's time to pay up. Please See Olympic wage Page 17
don't make us wait any longer. We waited over two-and-ahalf years. It's time to pay up now," Houston said. Union leaders had lobbied for the ordinance, saying it would help members pay for rent and groceries, cover medical bills and remain in the city where they work. In May, the City Council approved the ordinance to raise the minimum wage for hotel and airport workers to $30 per hour by 2028, and provided new health credits for employees. However, within days, a coalition of local hospitality and tourism groups, dubbed the L.A. Alliance for Tourism, Jobs and Progress, challenged the ordinance, contending the wage increase would only harm local businesses during a volatile time. Some impacted business owners had previously warned that raising the minimum wage could result in layoffs. The ordinance was suspended and did not take effect while the signatures were being reviewed. Interim City Clerk Petty Santos said that because the process has concluded, the ordinance went into effect immediately Monday. The alliance raised concerns about the signature rescission process, both the city and county's verification process, and transparency surrounding some of the actions taken by supporters of the ordinance. "The numbers don't lie.