Sponsored message
Audience-funded nonprofit news
radio tower icon laist logo
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
Subscribe
  • Listen Now Playing Listen

The Brief

The most important stories for you to know today
  • Non-citizens warned to avoid jobs amid ICE sweeps
    A group of people gather outside the entrance to Glass House Farms.
    Families wait outside the front gates of the Glass House Farms facility outside Camarillo on July 11, 2025.

    Topline:

    A series of federal immigration raids at two California cannabis farms has reignited fears across the state’s legal weed industry, especially for immigrant workers. The United Farm Workers union (UFW) is now warning non-citizens to avoid cannabis jobs altogether, emphasizing the conflict between state legality and federal enforcement priorities.

    Immigrant workers at risk: The United Farm Workers urged undocumented and legal immigrants alike to steer clear of cannabis jobs, citing the federal illegality of marijuana as a potential basis for deportation, even in licensed operations.

    Industry shaken by raids: The aggressive federal action at state-sanctioned farms alarmed California’s cannabis sector, evoking memories of past drug war crackdowns and signaling a possible policy shift under the Trump administration.

    After massive federal raids last week at two Southern California cannabis farms, the United Farm Workers posted an urgent message to its social media accounts. Because weed remains illegal under federal law, the union advised workers who are not U.S. citizens to avoid jobs in the cannabis industry, even at state-licensed facilities.

    “We know this is unfair,” the United Farm Workers wrote Monday, “but we encourage you to protect yourself and your family.”

    The immigration enforcement operations at the Camarillo and Carpinteria facilities of Glass House Farms, one of the state’s largest licensed cannabis companies, have unsettled California’s legal industry, which feels more vulnerable than it has since voters approved recreational weed in 2016.

    The chaotic scene has brought to the forefront simmering concerns that weed farms could become an easy target as President Donald Trump ramps up deportations, because simply working in the industry could provide the criminal pretext to arrest even a legal immigrant.

    It has also resurfaced for many industry veterans traumatic memories of raids during the “war on drugs,” raising alarms that the Trump administration may be hardening its stance against what remains a federally illegal substance.

    “There is a sense that the community has gotten a little complacent in our legalization bubbles,” said Caren Woodson, senior director of compliance and licensing for Kiva Brands and the board president of the California Cannabis Industry Association. “We're definitely in a moment of uncertainty.”

    Armed officers in tactical gear and gas masks stand in a line at night, illuminated by headlights.
    A line of federal immigration agents and protesters stand-off near the Glass House Farms facility outside Camarillo on July 10, 2025.
    (
    Larry Valenzuela
    /
    CalMatters/CatchLight Local
    )

    The fears of California cannabis growers had largely faded in recent decades, since voters legalized medical marijuana in 1996 and its recreational use in 2016. The legal market was nearly $4.9 billion last year and employed an estimated 83,000 people, though its growth is precarious as it struggles to compete with a stubbornly robust illicit industry.

    But any sense of ease was snapped by the immigration raids last week, which were tied to alleged labor violations by Glass House Farms. Federal authorities ultimately reported more than 360 arrests of people they suspected of being in the country illegally and the recovery of 14 immigrant minors. Glass House Farms did not respond to emailed questions.

    “There is absolutely heightened risk working for a cannabis facility. It shouldn't be that way,” Woodson said. “Folks should be aware of that risk and we should be prepared as an industry to manage that risk.”

    The Trump administration has not given an indication whether those operations were an isolated incident or a reflection of shifting enforcement priorities on cannabis. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration did not respond to emailed questions.

    Advocates had hoped that Trump might finally lead the way on loosening federal restrictions on cannabis. Yet since suggesting during his campaign last fall that he would downgrade the classification of weed so that its medical uses can be more easily studied, Trump has made no moves toward rescheduling.

    Other developments signal that momentum may be moving in the opposite direction. During his confirmation hearing, Trump’s nominee to lead the DEA would not commit to removing cannabis from the list of serious narcotics, and there is an ongoing effort in Congress to block its reclassification.

    A woman holds up a smartphone displaying a photo of a man in a gray hoodie.
    Mia Ortiz holds a photo of her father on her phone while talking to reporters on July 11, 2025.
    (
    Larry Valenzuela
    /
    CalMatters/CatchLight Local
    )

    “We can’t take anything for granted,” Steph Sherer, executive director of the advocacy group Americans For Safe Access, warned industry members on a video call last week following the raids. “We've gotten dependent on this broader layer of support for medical cannabis that's being tested right now.”

    She suggested that growers learn how to read a search warrant, have a criminal lawyer on retainer and plan how they would pay for bail.

    Not everyone believes it’s time to panic just yet. Some local members of the cannabis industry have noted that Glass House’s facilities are surrounded by other weed farms that were not raided by federal authorities, which could mean the operation was entirely unrelated to drugs.

    The California Department of Cannabis Control subsequently confirmed that it was actively investigating a child labor complaint against the company.

    “The employment of individuals under the age of 21 in the cannabis industry is strictly illegal, a serious matter, and is not tolerated,” spokesperson David Hafner said in a statement.

    This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

  • ISOC is a foundational pillar for SoCal's Muslims
    ARAB-MENTAL-HEALTH
    Hundreds of people attend Friday midday prayer at the Islamic Society of Orange County mosque.
    The Southern California Muslim community during the early to mid-20th century became more diverse, but the visibility of Muslims in SoCal didn’t significantly increase until the creation of new Islamic institutions and hubs like the Islamic Society of Orange County.

    Why it matters: Today, the SoCal muslim community is diverse, as people from the Middle East, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Southeast Asia, Latin America, and descendants from Europe attend ISOC and share it as a community space.

    The impact: ISOC is the largest Muslim community center in Southern California, serving more than 10,000 followers throughout the area.

    Read on... or more on ISOC's influence and history.

    The Southern California Muslim community during the early to mid-20th century became more diverse, but the visibility of Muslims in SoCal didn’t significantly increase until the creation of new Islamic institutions and hubs like the Islamic Society of Orange County.

    Community pillars like the Islamic Society of Orange County (ISOC), located in Garden Grove, allow Muslims in Southern Calfironia to connect with their faith and explore their religious identities in a rapidly changing society.

    With the holy month of Ramadan underway, the Islamic Society of Orange County is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year.

    Muzammil Siddiqi, director and Islamic scholar for ISOC, who has served the community since 1981, recently joined LAist’s daily news program AirTalk with Larry Mantle, along with Deana Helmy, chair of the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California, to talk about the community center’s impact on the region over the past five decades.

    How ISOC got its start

    Muslims began arriving in Southern California as early as the 20th century, with roots primarily from South Asian Punjabi descent and the Middle East.

    “It was a small number,” said Sidiqqi. “They started gathering at religious services and learning about the Quran within their families.”

    As numbers continued to increase, particularly after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Muslims in Southern California formed the basis of the ISOC, and in 1976, it became the first mosque in Orange County.

    ARAB-MENTAL-HEALTH
    The Islamic Society of Orange county serves thousands of Muslims with prayer, educational, and counseling services, including a youth group.
    (
    Samanta Helou Hernandez
    /
    LAist
    )

    “At the time, when the community bought this place, they thought it was too big for them,” said Sidiqqi, adding, “Soon a large number of people started coming, and we had to buy neighboring properties.”

    Today, the SoCal muslim community is diverse, as people from the Middle East, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Southeast Asia, Latin America and descendants from Europe attend ISOC and share it as a community space.

    “The Mother Mosque”

    The Islamic Society of Orange County has grown to become the largest Muslim community center in Southern California, serving more than 10,000 followers throughout the area.

    “That’s why we call it the mother mosque,” Sidiqqi said.

    The mosque is more than just a place for worship for Muslims in SoCal; it's a community center.

    “I actually attended the elementary school at ISOC called Orange Crescent School,” Helmy said.

    Orange Crescent School is located within the Islamic Society of Orange County Masjid premises in Garden Grove. It currently offers full-time schooling from preschool to 8th grade, and intends to expand its reach and become the first Islamic High School in Orange County.

    A facade of a trailer classroom with a mural of flowers and text that reads "Respect." Along the wall are hooks where various children's bag and backpacks hang.
    Children's backpacks hang outside of a classroom at the Orange Crescent School located on the grounds of the Garden Grove mosque.
    (
    Samanta Helou Hernandez
    /
    LAist
    )

    “All subjects that are taught in other schools are taught here. Aside from that, they learn the Arabic language and Islamic studies,” Sidiqqi said. “We emphasize very much the moral character of our students, according to Islamic traditions.”

    AirTalk listeners also weighed in and shared the role ISOC plays in their lives.

    Adis in the city of Orange told Larry, “My dad was the first president of the youth group organized in the masjid, and my mom was very involved in organizing as well,” adding, “that was the first place where they met, and it was history from there.”

    “I just go to hang out with my daughter sometimes over the weekend,” said LAist reporter Yusra Farzan, adding, “They have cool Friday night programs for kids.”

    Equality, leadership, and interfaith outreach

    In addition to making inroads with the Muslim society-at-large, ISOC has also played a crucial role in acknowledging the need for women's representation in its organization.

    “Leadership at the masjid has always elevated and highlighted women,” said Helmy, adding that ISOC has “really ensured that women have the space and place to belong, to be able to speak up and to be encouraged to take on leadership roles.”

    ISOC offers a variety of services and programs that aim to educate people about Islam and debunk misconceptions and myths about the faith. Sidiqqi recalled being in the nation’s capital the day of the 9/11 attacks, telling Mantle that he was actually invited by President George W. Bush to participate in the interfaith service that was held at the Washington National Cathedral.

    “This has been our work at the ISOC. Bringing understanding, reconciliation, peace, and harmony,” he said. “These have been the teachings of Islam, and so we invite people to come learn about the faith.”

    You can listen to the full AirTalk SoCal History segment here.

  • Sponsored message
  • Trump lays out path forward after SCOTUS ruling

    Topline:

    President Donald Trump called the Supreme Court's decision against his sweeping use of tariffs "deeply disappointing" and slammed the members of the court who ruled against him.


    Why now? The court — in a 6 to 3 decision — found that a law known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs.

    Why it matters: The ruling was the president's most significant defeat at the Supreme Court since he returned to office, and threatens to upend one of Trump's favorite and most powerful tools of his economic and foreign policy agenda. The decision injects even more uncertainty into the future of tariffs, but Trump made clear that he has no plans on giving up on his agenda.

    Trump's pivot: Talking with reporters Friday, Trump sought to put a positive spin on the court decision. He said that it would provide certainty for the U.S. economy and that he plans to seek alternatives, which he laid out specifically. Trump cited a dissent written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh who listed laws that the administration could pursue, including "the Trade Act of 1974 sections 122, 201, 301, and the Tariff Act of 1930 section 338."

    Read on... for more on how Trump is reacting.

    President Donald Trump called the Supreme Court's decision against his sweeping use of tariffs "deeply disappointing" and slammed the members of the court who ruled against him.

    Trump called the justices who opposed his tariffs "fools" and "lapdogs," charging that they were acting because of liberal partisanship, though three of those ruling against him were appointed by Republican presidents and two were Trump appointees.

    "I think it is deeply disappointing, and I'm ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what's right for our country," he said.

    The court — in a 6 to 3 decision —found that a law known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs.

    The ruling was the president's most significant defeat at the Supreme Court since he returned to office, and threatens to upend one of Trump's favorite and most powerful tools of his economic and foreign policy agenda.

    The decision injects even more uncertainty into the future of tariffs, but Trump made clear that he has no plans on giving up on his agenda.

    Calling it his "favorite word in the dictionary," Trump has repeatedly credited his use of tariffs with helping him stop wars and pressure world leaders to bend to U.S. interests.

    He boasted about the economic benefits. A recent Congressional Budget Office report found that tariffs were expected to help reduce the deficits by about $3 trillion over a decade. But that same report found that U.S. consumers - not foreign companies - were paying the vast majority of that money.

    But while talking with reporters Friday, Trump sought to put a positive spin on the court decision. He said that it would provide certainty for the U.S. economy and that he plans to seek alternatives, which he laid out specifically.

    "Their decision's incorrect. But it doesn't matter, because we have very powerful alternatives that have been approved by this decision," he said.

    Trump cited a dissent written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh who listed laws that the administration could pursue, including "the Trade Act of 1974 sections 122, 201, 301, and the Tariff Act of 1930 section 338."

    He acknowledged that those processes may be more cumbersome, but had stronger legal standing. He also cited Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, that allows the president to impose tariffs to address trade deficits. But those tariffs are limited to 15%, and only for 150 days, after which Congress would have to approve them.

    "While I am sure that they did not mean to do so, the Supreme Court's decision today made the President's ability to both regulate trade and impose tariffs more powerful and more crystal clear, rather than less. I don't think they meant that. I'm sure they didn't," Trump said.

    And he said he would sign an executive order today to continue certain tariffs under alternative authorities, including adding a "10% global tariff."

    That rule would also eventually need approval from Congress, after 150 days, which could be difficult with an election approaching.

    Republicans are facing pressure from constituents about high costs and the business community that is afraid to invest with all the economic uncertainty.

    A recent NPR/Marist poll finds that a majority of Americans — 56% — feel tariffs or fees on imported products from other countries hurts the U.S. economy.

    The former Senate majority leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell praised the Supreme Court's decision.

    "Congress' role in trade policy, as I have warned repeatedly, is not an inconvenience to avoid," the Kentucky Republican said. "If the executive would like to enact trade policies that impact American producers and consumers, its path forward is crystal clear: convince their representatives under Article 1" of the Constitution."

    But Trump, who has expressed frustration with gridlock in Congress, expressed confidence that he would continue to be able to employ tariffs unilaterally.

    "Foreign countries that have been ripping us off for years are ecstatic," Trump said. They are so happy and they're dancing in the streets. But they won't be dancing for long. That I can assure you."
    Copyright 2026 NPR

  • Judge rules city cannot rollout new law
    More than a half dozen recreational vehicles parked alongside a two-lane road on a clear, sunny day.
    RVs parked beside the Ballona Wetlands, a nature and wildlife area, in Council District 11, which is represented by Councilmember Traci Park.

    Topline:

    A judge has ruled that the city of Los Angeles cannot move forward with a program that would allow local officials to remove and dismantle more recreational vehicles the city deems a nuisance.

    Why it matters: The city planned to roll out a new state law that gives L.A. County authority to dispose of abandoned or inoperable RVs worth up to $4,000. The previous threshold was $500.

    The arguments: Some city officials who support the new law say L.A. must have the tools to get unsafe and unsanitary RVs off the streets for good. But opponents argued the law does not apply to the city of L.A. — only the county — and that the city’s “illegal” actions would harm vulnerable Angelenos who live in RVs.

    Why now: In a new ruling issued Thursday, Superior Court Judge Curtis A. Kin agreed with the opponents. The judge said the new law “provides no such authority to the City of Los Angeles.”

    Go deeper: West LA coalition challenges city's rollout of new RV law

    A judge has ruled that the city of Los Angeles cannot move forward with a program that would allow local officials to remove and dismantle more recreational vehicles the city deems a nuisance.

    The city planned to roll out a new state law that gives L.A. County authority to dispose of abandoned or inoperable RVs worth up to $4,000. The previous threshold was $500.

    Some city officials who support the new law say L.A. must have the tools to get unsafe and unsanitary RVs off the streets for good.

    But opponents argued the law does not apply to the city of L.A. — only the county — and that the city’s “illegal” actions would harm vulnerable Angelenos who live in RVs, according to court documents.

    In a new ruling issued Thursday, Superior Court Judge Curtis A. Kin agreed with the opponents. The judge said the new law “provides no such authority to the City of Los Angeles.”

    The backstory

    The ruling stems from a legal challenge by a coalition of housed and unhoused residents in West L.A. around the city’s implementation of Assembly Bill 630, which became law Jan. 1.

    The L.A. City Council voted in December to approve a motion instructing various city departments to “immediately implement” the law.

    The CD11 Coalition for Human Rights then asked a judge to intervene, claiming L.A. is “recklessly charging ahead” with a program it’s not authorized to execute, according to court documents.

    What the officials say

    Councilmember Traci Park, who introduced the council motion in October, told LAist previously that nuisance RVs create health and safety issues that put entire neighborhoods at risk. Park said residents want solutions, not frivolous lawsuits.

    Shayla Myers, an attorney with Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, told LAist after the ruling Thursday that the lawsuits aren’t frivolous when the petitioners keep winning.

    “It is incredibly unclear why the city did not simply accept the plain language of AB 630 and instead forced our client to go to court, wasting court resources, city resources at a time when the city doesn't have resources to spare,” Myers said.

    City Attorney Hydee Feldstein-Soto’s office did not respond to LAist’s requests for comment on the city’s implementation of AB 630.

    What’s next

    L.A. Mayor Karen Bass proposed AB 630 in partnership with Assemblymember Mark González, who introduced the California assembly bill. González said in a statement to LAist last month that his office is “working with our partners to clarify the law to ensure the City can fully implement AB 630."

    González has introduced another bill, AB 647, that would expand the language of the law to include “any public agency” within L.A. County.

    Go deeper: West LA coalition challenges city's rollout of new RV law

  • Import uptick likely as Sup. Court tosses tariffs
    Stacks of shipping containers of various colors are seen under blue skies with a crane in the background.
    An electric top handler moves cargo off of semi-trucks at Yusen Terminals at the Port of Los Angeles in San Pedro on Feb. 11, 2025.

    Topline:

    Los Angeles port leaders say they’re preparing for an increase in imports now that the U.S. Supreme Court has invalidated President Donald Trump’s sweeping emergency tariffs.

    The reaction: On Friday’s episode of LAist’s AirTalk, Port of L.A. executive director Gene Seroka said he’s expecting “an uptick in cargo” following the court ruling. “Right now, American executives are telling me that they're on the phone and communicating with their counterparts representing manufacturers in Asia to see how much product they can get, how quickly it can be ready, and then when it can be shipped over to avoid these tariffs,” Seroka said.

    The context: U.S. importers have already paid about $133 billion under tariffs imposed by the Trump administration through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The Supreme Court ruled this act does not give Trump the authority to impose such broad tariffs. Since Trump put the tariffs in place last April, Seroka said the Port of L.A. has seen “a roller coaster of a year.”

    “When that policy was softened and tariffs came down, we had a record July, our best month in the history of the Port of Los Angeles,” Seroka said. “That set the tone for the balance of the year. It was ups and downs based on more than 110 announcements emanating from Washington on trade policy and tariffs.”

    What will this mean for consumers? It’s unclear if importers will ever be refunded the tariffs they’ve already paid. Kevin Klowden, chief global strategist for the Milken Institute, said there isn’t an obvious mechanism in place to get that money back to companies. As for consumers, the Tax Foundation estimates the average U.S. household has faced about $1,300 in increased costs due to the tariffs. Klowden says it’s unlikely consumers will ever get a direct refund. “If the tariffs come in at a lower threshold under the other agreements, under the other legislation that the government is using, then we might see some prices reduce,” he said.