The Brief

The story first appeared on The LA Local.

5:18 p.m. Wednesday, May 6: This story has been updated with additional details.

Federal agents swarmed MacArthur Park on Wednesday afternoon in a joint operation targeted at suspected drug dealers.

Agents also searched six businesses in the Westlake neighborhood and said that at least 18 people were arrested as part of the investigation, which was called “Operation Free MacArthur Park.”

The suspects are allegedly tied to distributing fentanyl and methamphetamine out of the park, the U.S. Attorney’s Office said. Agents also raided a home in Calabasas and found 40 pounds of fentanyl believed to be part of the network of drugs distributed to MacArthur Park, according to authorities.

Agents in tactical gear and armored vehicles rolled through the neighborhood shortly after 2 p.m., according to images shared over social media, and an agent used a large saw to cut through a metal security door at a business storefront on Alvarado Street, NBC News reported.

The investigation included six businesses in Westlake and a federal indictment names 25 people, with several who have not been found.

Authorities arrested 18 people in connection to suspected drug trafficking in and around MacArthur Park. The suspects were identified in a news conference Wednesday by federal authorities.

(

Hanna Kang

/

The LA Local

)

The raids began Tuesday evening and are expected to continue, First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli announced during a press conference outside the park.

He was flanked by agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Los Angeles Police Department. Armored vehicles lined Alvarado Street and more agents in tactical gear stood under the shade of a nearby tree.

“We’re not leaving,” Essayli said. “We’ll come back as many times as we need to.”

The Los Angeles Police Department announced it provided assistance to its federal partners and clarified the investigation was not related to immigration enforcement.

Anthony Chrysanthis, special agent in charge for the DEA’s field office in Los Angeles, reiterated that the federal agency will return to Westlake.

“We will be watching this place every day, all the time. We’ve been gathering evidence for 60 days,” Chrysanthis said. “Privately, we get phone calls every day. ‘What are you doing about this?’ So, if you live in an area where you see drug activity, you can plan a friendly visit from law enforcement.”

Chrysanthis said the operation at the park was chosen because “this place is symbolic to Los Angeles.”

“The communities have to go back to the people. We have to make our city safe again for all people in Los Angeles. So today the message starts,” he said.

Troy Feller, volunteer with the faith-based organization Dream Center, was handing out lunch to people in the park when agents arrived. Feller saw police and agents wearing tactical gear pull up to the park.

“They started wrapping up the area really quickly. We’re out here every week and we have never seen something like this,” Feller said.

By 4:30 p.m. the road closures around the park reopened. A vendor swept up the sidewalk around their stall. Boxes of aspirin, back pain ointment and fake eyelashes spilled onto the sidewalk, along with broken glass.

A hole cut through the metal security door was visible from the sidewalk where an agent used a saw to cut into the vendor’s stall. Boxes of Monistat and Neosporin hung from inside the stall.

Araceli Arrega said she found out about the raid from the news coverage of the federal raid.

“I found out on TV they were cutting up my store. We don’t sell drugs here. I sell creams and medicine,” Arrega said. “They didn’t find anything. I can’t open my store until I fix my door.”

Aura Garcia, who owns Vitamins and Plus next to Arrega’s store, said law enforcement officers went to her daughter’s home and took her into custody. Garcia said officers also handcuffed her 13-year-old granddaughter in the process.

Garcia is still uncertain about whether the arrest is related to the federal operation. Their store was raided Wednesday, but she reiterated that they do not sell drugs.

Susana Cruz, an employee at the market La Bendición de Dios near Alvarado and Sixth said, “They thought that we sold drugs here, but they didn’t find anything.”

Cruz said federal agents raided the market and threw all the products to the floor, which includes creams and other pharmaceutical items. Agents also pulled down a security camera at the market.

Jose Ramirez, a street vendor on Sixth and Alvarado said, watched the aftermath of the raid from the sidewalk.

“I don’t know if this is all for show, but this made people afraid and the businesses that are barely surviving, I don’t know what’s going to happen to them,” he said. “There’s other ways to combat drug trafficking. I don’t know what the mayor is thinking.”

Others in the neighborhood said they support the operation in response to the ongoing drug use at the park.

Victoria Sykes, has lived in the neighborhood for the past five years and has been visiting the area for at least two decades.

“I’ve seen people dealing drugs here on Alvarado and I personally support what happened here today because I think drugs should leave this neighborhood. It’s not safe. We need to clean it up,” Sykes said.

The federal indictment names several people, including Mallaly Moreno-Lopez, 31, and Jackson Tarfur, 28, who are both from the Westmont neighborhood in South Los Angeles. Authorities claim that the couple hand-delivered drugs to storefronts and dealers street-level dealers. Federal documents detail 27 drug deals of fentanyl and methamphetamine from March 9 to April 15 in and around MacArthur Park.

The indictment references multiple street gangs, including 18th Street. Chrysanthis with the DEA said the operation is intended to send a message to the drug traffickers who operate out of the park.

“This is our park. This park belongs to the people of Los Angeles and to anyone who wants to sell drugs, I want them to look around because at any day we can come back and take it,” he said.

When asked why the operation took place now, Chrysanthis said, “FIFA is coming. The Super Bowl is coming. The Olympics are coming. It’s time to give the community back to the people of LA.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a Mississippi law that allows election officials to count mail-in ballots that are postmarked by Election Day but received up to five days after it.

The ruling is a loss for the Republican Party, which brought the case, ahead of this year's midterm elections.

Eighteen states and territories, including Mississippi, have such mail ballot grace periods. Most of the states are Democratic-led, including California, Illinois and New York. A dozen additional states have grace periods for ballots returning from overseas, like from military members.

The court's ruling was 5-4, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett authoring the opinion, joined in the majority by Chief Justice John Roberts and the court's liberal wing of Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

"[T]he election-day statutes require the electorate's choice to be made on election day. That occurs so long as election day is the deadline for individuals to vote—as it is in Mississippi," Barrett wrote. "But the election-day statutes do not set a deadline for ballot receipt, so they do not prevent Mississippi from counting ballots postmarked before election day yet received afterward."

Justice Samuel Alito authored the dissent, writing in part that the "majority's holding spawns a slurry of troubling election-law questions and risks further undermining Americans' confidence in election integrity."

How the battle over grace periods ended up at the Supreme Court

These grace periods have historically provided voters time to get their absentee ballots to officials in case there are any issues with the Postal Service — as well as any other unforeseen issues, such as weather events.

But Republicans have been fighting these grace periods in recent years — an effort led by President Trump.

Ahead of the 2024 election, the Republican National Committee and the Trump campaign filed legal challenges — including one against Mississippi's law — alleging that these grace periods violate the Constitution. They argued that Congress sets the end of an election, not states.

At the time, many of the lawsuits were dismissed by judges across the country, but the conservative 5th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Republicans, setting up the Supreme Court case.

Trump also signed an executive order last year — which was quickly blocked by lower courts — that required that all votes be received by Election Day during federal elections.

Many state officials, particularly in Democratic-run states with universal mail-in ballot programs, raised concerns about such a requirement.

Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs said in a statement last year that more than 250,000 ballots that had been postmarked on time arrived after Election Day during the 2024 election.

"Had this rule been in effect," he said, "those voices would have been silenced, especially in rural areas where mail delivery can take longer."
Copyright 2026 NPR

The Supreme Court on Thursday restricted the use of a relatively new law enforcement technique that allows police to tap into giant tech-firm databases to see who was near the scene of a crime.

Writing for the 6-3 majority, Justice Elena Kagan said that the technique, known as geofencing, violates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches.

A "geofence warrant" entails drawing a virtual fence around a geographic area where a crime was committed. The government can then seek a warrant to require a tech company to search its data to identify any of its users who were within the geofence at the time of the crime.

This case stems from a robbery in the suburbs of Richmond, Va. A man stole $195,000 from a bank, but after two months, the case had gone cold. That is, until detectives served a warrant on Google, asking for the location information of cellphone users in and around the bank for the hour before and after the crime was committed.

Complying with the warrant, Google initially found the names of 19 people who were in or near the bank, but Google pushed back, ultimately providing the police with the names of just three people whose location data showed they were at the bank. When police went to the home of one of them, they found a pistol matching one seen on security camera footage of the robbery and nearly $100,000 in cash. That man, Okello Chatrie, later confessed and was convicted of the crime.

His attorneys argued in filings to the court that geofence searches violate the Fourth Amendment because they allow the government "to search first and develop suspicions later." The geofence warrants in this case directed Google to search millions of users' location histories, meaning that millions of people were subjected to a search despite never having done anything suspicious.

But the government argued in its filings that because people can choose not to give companies like Google their location data, that data is not constitutionally protected.
Copyright 2026 NPR

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday overturned a 91-year-old precedent that has prevented presidents from removing members of independent agencies at will. The decision represents a significant win for the Trump administration and a major expansion of the president's control over parts of the government once seen as a check on his powers.

In a 6-3 ruling, the court found that President Trump's March 2025 firing of Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter without cause was lawful.

Since its creation of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in 1914, Congress has held that commissioners can only be fired for "inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office." Slaughter was presented with no such reason for her removal, only told her "continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with [the Trump] Administration's priorities."

Last summer, a lower court found her firing was unlawful, citing a 1935 landmark decision known as Humphrey's Executor, a case prompted by President Franklin D. Roosevelt's attempted firing of an FTC commissioner over ideological disagreements. The court unanimously held that while the president has the power to remove purely executive officers for any reason, that unlimited power does not extend to agencies like the FTC, whose duties, the court found, "are neither political nor executive, but predominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative."

Rebecca Kelly Slaughter was appointed in 2018 to fill a Democratic seat on the Federal Trade Commission. She was fired by the Trump administration in 2024.

(

Elizabeth Gillis

/

NPR

)

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: "Although it is up to the Senate to decide whether to confirm those with whom the President would prefer to work, neither Congress nor the courts may saddle him with those with whom he cannot work. Subordinates who exercise the President's power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people."

The three liberal justices dissented.

The independence of the Federal Reserve remains intact — for now. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, can remain in her job until litigation is resolved in the lower courts.

A final blow to a 91-year-old precedent

Thursday's decision marks a final blow to Humphrey's Executor.

"If anything more is left of Humphrey's, the Court overrules it," Robert wrote in the majority opinion.

During Trump's first term, the Supreme Court chipped away at the precedent when it let Trump fire the head of another independent agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

In that case, the Supreme Court held that the firing was permissible because the CFPB is run by a single director rather than a multimember board. Chief Justice John Roberts described Humphrey's Executor as applying only to multimember agencies "that do not wield substantial executive power."

Now with this latest decision, the conservative majority has found reason to give the president power over multimember agencies, too.

The ruling essentially turns FTC commissioners into at-will employees, who serve at the pleasure of the president. It also effectively ends Congress' requirement that the FTC be bipartisan, so that no one party has too much sway.

Congress dictated that no one political party can hold more than three seats on the five-member commission, recognizing the vast influence the FTC has over the lives of everyday Americans.

The agency's commissioners are antitrust experts, uniquely positioned to keep watch over all kinds of companies — big tech companies, pharmaceutical companies, manufacturers and media companies — ensuring their practices aren't harming regular people.

Now, going forward, there's nothing to stop any president from removing commissioners from the opposing party and leaving the seats vacant, which is what Trump has done.

After his firing of two Democratic FTC commissioners last year, the only remaining commissioners are Republicans.

The independence of a multitude of other agencies also in doubt

The ruling also throws into question the protections afforded to members of a multitude of other federal agencies, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, where Trump has also fired Democratic members.

Like the FTC, those agencies play important roles in the daily lives of Americans, protecting people from discrimination and abuse on the job and unsafe products, including toys.

Congress created those agencies and many others following the Supreme Court's decision in Humphrey's Executor, assuming that they would operate with some degree of independence from the White House.

In an interview last fall with NPR, Slaughter said it was vital for the Supreme Court to preserve its independence.

"Independence allows the decision-making that is done by these boards and commissions to be on the merits, about the facts, and about protecting the interests of the American people," she said. "That is what Americans deserve from their government."

James M. Burnham, an attorney who has served in both Trump administrations, offered the counter view, arguing that Congress' limits on the president's removal powers have been unconstitutional from the beginning.

"I don't think there is such a thing as an independent agency because everything has to be in one of the three branches of government," he argued. "I don't think they've ever been independent."
Copyright 2026 NPR

The unauthorized practice of immigration law, known as notario fraud among Spanish speakers in the U.S., is a longstanding issue in immigrant communities.

But amid the Trump administration’s ongoing mass deportation effort, immigrants rights groups say heightened levels of fear and confusion are pushing more people into the hands of fraudsters. In their desperation for help, immigrants are spending thousands of dollars, only to be left with substandard assistance, meritless applications or no legal work at all.

Public Counsel, a nonprofit pro bono law firm headquartered in Los Angeles, recently published a white paper on the issue, geared at fellow immigration advocates and consumer advocates.

In it, the nonprofit underscores that an error on a case can lead to devastating results for immigrants and their families. These can range from the loss of immigration status, deportation, a permanent bar from entering the U.S. or prolonged detention at facilities with inhumane conditions.

Exploiting a cultural misunderstanding   

Advocates say newly arrived immigrants are at particular risk of fraud, as they are unfamiliar with the U.S. legal system and often unsure who is qualified to give them legal advice.

Public Counsel notes that the term notario público itself “provides a unique opportunity for deception.”

In many Latin American countries, notarios públicos are highly educated legal experts who have similar training and professional duties as lawyers. In contrast, a “notary public” in the U.S. is solely authorized to witness the signature of forms and may not provide legal advice or services. According to the nonprofit, notarios in the U.S. exploit this cultural misunderstanding.

Notarios, the nonprofit adds, typically advertise themselves as a more affordable option to licensed attorneys, falsely claiming that a lawyer is not necessary in an immigration case. Tax preparers, travel agents and even pastors have also been known to exploit vulnerable immigrant communities.

What do the schemes look like?

Kathleen Rivas, a supervising attorney at Public Counsel’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, described a common scheme: Immigrants who have a family member who's a U.S citizen or lawful permanent resident often approach notarios asking for support in filing a family petition, she said. Instead, notaries will submit an asylum application on their behalf — sometimes without that person’s knowledge.

When people have a pending asylum application, they receive a work permit, Rivas said. This can lead immigrants to believe things are going well; but if that asylum application gets denied, they could soon face a deportation order.

Martha, an immigrant from Mexico who is now being represented by Rivas, spent more than $14,000 trying to get help from a man who posed as an attorney. (Martha declined to share her last name with LAist, out of fear of reprisals.) Martha first reached out to the fraudster in 2023, heeding a relative’s recommendation. After she paid him, she said, the fraudster became less responsive. Years passed. She begged for updates. He asked for more money.

Then, Donald Trump was re-elected, and federal agents began detaining immigrants in court. With her heart in her mouth, Martha attended a mandatory ICE check-in without the support of her supposed lawyer. A friend recommended Martha ask the man she’d hired for his license number.

“He never gave it to me, ever,” she said. Martha later learned that he’d filed an asylum application on her behalf, despite her objections.

What’s being done

Public Counsel is calling on state lawmakers and local governments to allocate more resources to investigate and bring enforcement actions against illegal immigration consultants.

The nonprofit also recommends updating the state’s Immigration Consultants Act, first enacted in 1986.

According to Rivas, California enacted this law in response to a huge increase in need for immigration help. But, she underscored, immigration consultants are meant to have a very limited role in individual cases. These duties include helping people fill out forms, as well as translating and gathering documents.

Immigrant consultants “are absolutely not supposed to be giving legal advice or tell people what they qualify for or what they should apply for,” Rivas said. “But, often, it is these people that are engaging in fraud, and they often go far outside the bounds of their limited scope.”

In her view, the state needs to “dramatically [raise] the bar of who can operate as an immigration consultant” by requiring “actual training, oversight, accountability [and] supervision from an attorney” — or repeal the law altogether.