The Brief

The Trump administration formally rescinded the legal foundation of federal climate policy Thursday — setting up a new front in California’s long-running battle with Washington over emissions rules.

“Today, the Trump EPA has finalized the single largest act of deregulation in the history of the United States of America,” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said at a White House press conference. “Referred to by some as the holy grail of federal regulatory overreach, the 2009 Obama EPA endangerment finding is now eliminated.”

After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the federal government may regulate greenhouse gases if they were found to endanger public health, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a scientific determination that greenhouse gases indeed were a threat. By withdrawing its own so-called “endangerment finding,” the EPA is abandoning its justification for federal tailpipe standards, power plant rules and fuel economy regulations.

California opposed the withdrawal of the endangerment finding when it was proposed last year, and is expected to sue over the decision.

California Air Resources Board executive director Steven Cliff testified at the time that the move ignored settled science.

“Thousands of scientists from around the world are not wrong,” Cliff said in his testimony. “In this proposal, EPA is denying reality and telling every victim of climate-driven fires and floods not to believe what’s right before their eyes.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement Thursday that California would take the Trump administration to court over the decision.

“Donald Trump may put corporate greed ahead of communities and families, but California will not stand by,” Newsom said. “We will continue to lead because the lives and livelihoods of our people depend on it.”

Other states and environmental groups have also indicated they could sue. They include Massachusetts, which was part of the coalition of states that sued to force the federal government to curb greenhouse gases nearly two decades ago.

Eliminating the federal basis for regulating planet-warming gases will not halt California’s climate policies, most of which – from California’s market-based approach to cutting carbon pollution to clean energy mandates for utilities — rest on state law.

In fact, the decision may open the door for California to set its own greenhouse gas standards for vehicles, a possibility that lawmakers and regulators are actively weighing.

The reversal in federal policy could also undercut arguments that federal law blocks state lawsuits against oil companies and boosts interest in expanding California’s authority over planet-warming pollution within its borders.

California prepares for a fight 

Ann Carlson, a UCLA law professor and former federal transportation official, has argued that aggressive federal action against climate policy “could, ironically, provide states with authority they’ve never had before.”

Writing in the law journal Environmental Forum, Carlson theorized that California could attempt to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks directly under state law.

Campbell Power Plant in Sacramento on Aug. 31, 2022.

(

Rahul Lal

/

CalMatters

)

Federal law has preempted most states from setting local vehicle emission standards; California has, through a series of waivers granted under federal clean air law, obtained permission to set stricter standards than the federal government does.

This could help California’s efforts “in the long run,” Carlson wrote in an email Wednesday, “but of course withdrawing the United States from all efforts to tackle climate change is a terrible move. We should be leading the global effort, not retreating.”

In California, where cars and trucks account for more than a third of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions, California regulators at the air board and lawmakers are weighing in. When asked last year by CalMatters whether the air board would consider writing its own rules, Chair Lauren Sanchez said, “All options are currently on the table.”

“This is definitely a conversation,” Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris, a Democrat from Irvine, said during a Wednesday press conference held by the California Environmental Voters. “So stay tuned.”

Ripple effects in court and Sacramento

If Washington formally exits the field of carbon regulation, states may argue they have broader room to pursue liability claims tied to wildfire costs and other climate impacts, experts said.

California has sued major oil companies as recently as 2023, in an attempt to hold them responsible for climate impacts. Oil companies have frequently cited federal oversight as a reason to dismiss climate-damage lawsuits against them.

“California is struggling with wildfire costs, for example, which are linked strongly to a warming climate,” said Ethan Elkind, a climate law expert at UC Berkeley. “I think that opens up a lot of legal avenues for states like California.”

The federal pullback has prompted lawmakers to consider expanding the Air Resources Board’s powers.

Assemblymember Robert Garcia, a Democrat from Rancho Cucamonga, this week introduced a bill aimed at affirming the state’s power to curb pollution from large facilities that generate heavy truck traffic, such as warehouses and ports, which concentrate diesel exhaust in nearby communities.

“It's no secret that the federal government and California are not seeing eye to eye — we're not on the same page,” Garcia said at Wednesday’s news conference. “This is an opportunity for our state, for California to step in.”

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

In 2009, a group of 25 students at Eagle Rock Elementary were asked by students at Cal Poly Pomona to draw their dream campus. Nearly all sketched schools with trees, farms and ponds.

The college students took the children’s ideas and drew up a plan that eventually helped transform the Los Angeles Unified school, located between Pasadena and Glendale, from 90% asphalt into a campus flush with trees, gardens and outdoor classrooms.

But nearly two decades later, many Los Angeles schools are still waiting for their greenery transformation. An EdSource analysis found that 249 — or 26% — of LAUSD’s 934 schools have less than 5% tree canopy.

“Imagine standing out on the asphalt. It’s a very hot day, and we see this grass patch, and it’s not that much cooler,” said Lauren McKenna, a senior program manager for Green Schoolyards America. “There’s a few trees, and we’re saying, imagine standing under that one tree. And, imagine there were like 50 more trees.”

Eagle Rock Elementary.

(

Mallika Seshadri

/

EdSource

)

Los Angeles County has the greatest number of schools among counties in the state located in areas with high heat scores. Many of those campuses lack adequate shade.

That situation was apparent on Oct. 5, when the Los Angeles area saw five straight days of temperatures at or above 100 degrees. Then, more than 9 in 10 LAUSD schools were in an area with high or severe heat risk. 238 schools — serving more than 110,000 students — have trees covering 5% or less of student play and rest areas.

LAUSD officials say they are trying to change that. The board passed a resolution in 2022 to increase green space on school campuses, and many schools have undergone major transformations since then. But parents at schools where there hasn’t been as much progress say they are still waiting.

“Summers are shape shifting in a lot of ways, but it’s not like it’s unpredictable. We know these things are coming,” said Víctor Sánchez, executive director of the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy, whose children attend schools in the Highland Park neighborhood. On the asphalt surfaces at his child’s school, he said, temperatures sometimes surpass 120 degrees.

A resolution in the making 

When the board adopted in 2022 its initiative to have 30% of its campuses covered in green space by 2035, only 16% of campuses met that benchmark.

Greening schools and increasing tree canopies aren’t synonymous, but there is substantial overlap. More broadly, greening aims to reduce asphalt on campuses while incorporating outdoor spaces, trees, gardens and other natural elements.

Currently, 27% of LAUSD schools meet the district’s greening goals, according to Christos Chrysiliou, chief eco-sustainability officer, who oversees the district’s greening efforts. More than 80% of the district’s highest-need elementary schools also have a greening project that has been completed, is underway or is planned.

The majority of these projects are funded through voter-approved school facilities bonds, Chrysiliou said, including the $9 billion bond L.A. voters passed in 2024. The bond measure directed $1.2 billion to outdoor areas and play spaces, including school greening projects, he said.

Additional grants from CAL FIRE and the California Natural Resources Agency have also helped fund the work.

But progress has varied across the district. At schools like Eagle Rock Elementary, greening projects began decades ago, and the trees are mature. At Esperanza Elementary in the Westlake area, by contrast, newly planted trees have years of growth ahead.

LAUSD’s Esperanza Elementary with newly planted trees and greenery.

(

Mallika Seshadri

/

EdSource

)

“This is more than a beautiful schoolyard. This is what environmental justice looks like,” said LAUSD Board Vice President Rocío Rivas at an August ribbon cutting ceremony at Esperanza Elementary.

“Every child deserves access to green, healthy spaces where they can learn, play, connect with nature, regardless of their zip code.”

Equitable access to shade 

While LAUSD has set their goal at 30%, Kelly Turner, a professor of urban planning and geography at UCLA, said that amount of green space won’t always lead to the desired benefits.

“Los Angeles is huge and spans many different climate regions,” Turner said. “So, a school in the valley versus a school in the Inland Empire versus a school in central or coastal LA, they’re all going to have very different climate conditions and therefore different needs.”

LAUSD prioritizes schools based on CalEnviroScreen, a dataset measuring communities based on pollutants, and Cal-Adapt extreme heat data. Schools with the highest rankings are addressed first, Chrysiliou said.

Elementary schools with less than 10% green space are also prioritized, as is enrollment, so projects can “help the most students,” he added.

“We want these kinds of greening projects to benefit the students with the most need and the fewest options for green space at home,” said Claire Latané, a professor of landscape architecture at Cal Poly Pomona, whose students participated in the 2009 effort at Eagle Rock Elementary.

In 180 LAUSD schools, trees cover more than 15% of the areas where students play and rest, about 22% on average. In 249 schools, trees shade 5% or less, an average of just 3%.

There’s an equity component, too. While 76% of students at high-canopy schools are eligible for free and reduced-price meals, 88% of students at low-canopy campuses qualify.

“Equity and access are central to the district’s approach,” Chrysiliou said. “Greening funds goes first to schools with the least green space in the communities hit hardest by pollution, extreme heat and economic hardship.”

Alinne Gonzalez has two children in the district who attend schools in the sometimes sweltering Van Nuys area, one in first grade and one in 10th. Back in 2022 when the district passed its resolution stating its greening goals, Gonzalez recalled thinking that while her eldest son might not get to enjoy a tree canopy, at least her youngest would.

Progress has been slow, she said. Some younger trees have been planted, but there still isn’t much shade.

She and other parents have been growing frustrated and have been calling on the district to speed up its progress.

“They keep saying it’s going to get done,” Gonzalez said. “…But we’re not going to let up. We’re going to keep going until it happens for us.”

LAS VEGAS (AP) — Duane “Keffe D” Davis is set to be sentenced Tuesday for orchestrating the murder of rap icon Tupac Shakur, who was gunned down off the Las Vegas Strip over 30 years ago.

Davis, 63, was convicted in August of first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon. He is the only person ever charged in the death of Shakur, whose popularity was peaking at age 25. Davis faces life in prison without the possibility of parole.

On the night of Sept. 7, 1996, Shakur was in the passenger seat of a black BMW with music mogul Marion “Suge” Knight when a white Cadillac pulled up at a red light, and shots erupted. Shakur was shot multiple times and died six days later, while Knight survived.

Shakur is considered one of the most influential and versatile rappers of all time and had a burgeoning film career as an actor at the time of his death. His legend has only grown since. His songs still resonate among fans with themes of hardship, love and Black struggles.

The killing went unsolved for years until Davis, a former leader of the South Side Compton Crips, gave interviews and published his role in the shooting in his 2019 tell-all memoir. He explained how Shakur and his entourage beat up Davis’ nephew hours before the shooting in Las Vegas. He said he sought retaliation, and that he was in the passenger seat of the Cadillac and passed the gun to the backseat, where shots were fired. Davis had spoken to detectives years before but avoided prosecution because of an agreement he made with law enforcement.

During the weekslong trial, prosecutors relied on Davis’ own statements he made to law enforcement and documentarians. They argued Davis orchestrated the shooting and provided the gun used in Shakur’s death, which was the result of a rivalry between the South Side Compton Crips and Mob Piru. Davis’ defense attorney pointed to a lack of physical evidence that connected his client to the 30-year-old crime, and he portrayed Davis as a liar who was trying to make money.

After nine days of hearing testimony in August, the jury deliberated for three hours before turning over the guilty verdict. Davis said in court that he plans to appeal.

Shakur was an icon, a brother

Shakur’s family is expected to speak at the sentencing, including his siblings Maurice “Mopreme” Shakur and Sekyiwa “Set” Shakur.

Following the verdict, prosecutor Binu Palal said that to many people, Shakur was an icon or an idea, “but to the family, Tupac Shakur was a brother, a son, a cousin, a loved person ripped from them 30 years ago.”

Palal said the family had to sit through years of Davis “bragging about killing someone they loved.”

“They loved that man. And the arrogance that Mr. Davis had in expressing his joy in killing that man ultimately was his undoing,” Palal said.

Prosecutors say they have insufficient evidence to charge anyone else

Davis is the only person to be charged and convicted in the killing of Shakur. The three other people who allegedly were in the Cadillac — including Davis’ nephew Orlando “Baby Lane” Anderson who Davis said was the one who pulled the trigger — have died.

Sean “Diddy” Combs and his alleged role were brought up often throughout the trial. Witnesses testified Combs used members of the South Side Compton Crips for security for Bad Boy Records. In his book and public statements, Davis alleged Combs offered him money to kill Shakur and Knight. Combs, who is serving a four-year prison sentence after being convicted of prostitution-related offenses, has repeatedly denied any involvement in the death of Shakur.

Clark County District Attorney Steve Wolfson has said his office doesn’t believe it has sufficient evidence to charge anyone else.

“But like any other case, if we come into more information, more evidence, we can always consider filing additional charges,” he said following the guilty verdict. “But today, we don’t believe that’s the appropriate move to make.”