Students walk through Dickson Plaza against a backdrop of Royce Hall on the UCLA campus.
(
Genaro Molina
/
Los Angeles Times via Getty Images
)
Topline:
A federal judge in California today ordered the Trump administration to restore 500 National Institutes of Health grants that it suspended at UCLA in July over accusations the campus tolerates antisemitism.
Why it matters: Judge Rita Lin’s decision provides researchers at the university a major respite as UCLA and University of California leaders contend with Trump’s demands for a $1.2 billion settlement over a litany of accusations, including that the campus permits antisemitism. It’s a claim that more than 600 Jewish members of the University of California community in a public letter say is “misguided and punitive.” Meanwhile, UCLA’s leadership highlighted its efforts to combat antisemitism days before Trump’s settlement demands.
How we got here: Last week several UC faculty groups and unions sued to halt the administration from pursuing its settlement demands, describing them as an “unlawful threat of federal funding cuts” to “illegally coerce the UC into suppressing free speech and academic freedom rights.”
The context: Lin’s decision follows her string of orders since June that have restored hundreds of other UC research grants from multiple agencies. Her injunction is preliminary; the trial is ongoing.
What it means: The action restores virtually all of the 800 UCLA science grants the government froze in July — a value of more than $500 million. Lin’s order today of restoring 500 National Institutes of Health grants follows her decision last month that 300 National Science Foundation grants suspended in July be restored. The federal government complied with her August order by reversing the freezes.
Read on ... for details of the preliminary injunction.
A federal judge in California today ordered the Trump administration to restore 500 National Institutes of Health grants that it suspended at UCLA in July over accusations the campus tolerates antisemitism.
Judge Rita Lin’s decision provides researchers at the university a major respite as UCLA and University of California leaders contend with Trump’s demands for a $1.2 billion settlement over a litany of accusations, including that the campus permits antisemitism. It’s a claim that more than 600 Jewish members of the University of California community in a public letter say is “misguided and punitive.” Meanwhile, UCLA’s leadership highlighted its efforts to combat antisemitism days before Trump’s settlement demands.
“Cutting off hundreds of millions of research funds will do nothing to make UCLA safer for Jews nor diminish antisemitism in the world,” the public letter signed by UC Jewish professors, students, staff and alumni says.
Last week several UC faculty groups and unions sued to halt the administration from pursuing its settlement demands, describing them as an “unlawful threat of federal funding cuts” to “illegally coerce the UC into suppressing free speech and academic freedom rights.”
Lin’s decision follows her string of orders since June that have restored hundreds of other UC research grants from multiple agencies. Her injunction is preliminary; the trial is ongoing.
Today’s action restores virtually all of the 800 UCLA science grants the government froze in July — a value of more than $500 million. Lin’s order today of restoring 500 National Institutes of Health grants follows her decision last month that 300 National Science Foundation grants suspended in July be restored. The federal government complied with her August order by reversing the freezes.
Lin’s latest order also restores three Department of Transportation grants and an unknown number of Department of Defense grants that the Trump administration terminated this year.
Lin gave lawyers for the Trump administration until Sept. 29 to submit a report confirming that they complied with her orders to restore the grants.
How we got here
In June, Lin issued a preliminary injunction, later upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, that ordered the Trump administration to restore 114 National Science Foundation grants and several dozen other grants from the Environmental Protection Agency and National Endowment for the Humanities at all UC campuses.
Then in August, Lin sided with the lawyers for the researchers in undoing the funding freezes for the 300 National Science Foundation grants. The lawyers argued that the Trump administration’s surprising decision in late July to suspend those grants violated Lin’s June injunction.
Lin’s latest order similarly says that the federal government violated her June preliminary injunction when it suspended the 500 National Institutes of Health grants at UCLA, also in late July. Core to her rationale is that the science agencies terminated UC grants en masse, in violation of a law, the Administrative Procedure Act, that requires federal agencies to explain in individual detail why the grants were terminated. Her rationale echoes other federal district court rulings about grant terminations.
How this relates to recent Supreme Court decision
Lin’s decision also creates a potential opening for other researchers seeking to challenge their grant terminations after an August U.S. Supreme Court decision seemingly made that process harder.
In that decision, the high court said the right venue to sue to get a defunded grant restored is the little-known Court of Federal Claims, not a traditional district court. A slim majority of justices said that plaintiffs need to argue in the Court of Federal Claims to get their money back while they argue in a traditional district court to challenge the policy that led to the grant’s termination in the first place.
But Lin concluded that that Supreme Court decision can’t apply to the UC researchers because of a quirk in who can file suit in the Court of Federal Claims. Because research grants are contracts between a university and the federal government, only universities have “standing” to bring a suit to the Court of Federal Claims. The Supreme Court decision didn’t take on the issue of individuals, Lin wrote, but the high court justices still believed plaintiffs should have some way to argue that their funding should be restored.
Here’s how Lin’s order creates an opening: Lawyers for the federal government argued to Lin that because the plaintiffs are individual UC researchers and not the UC campuses themselves, they can’t sue at all to restore their grant funding. But Lin balked at that rationale at the Thursday hearing and in her written order Monday.
“The district courts are the only forum where the UC researchers could defend their constitutional and statutory rights, and the Ninth Circuit has already determined that they may bring their claims here. This Court will not shut its doors to them,” Lin wrote.
She added in her written order that the lawyers for the federal government presented an “extreme” view that the researchers couldn’t sue anywhere, even in the hypothetical scenario in which the federal government terminated “the federal funding of all Black researchers, or every researcher with an Asian last name — and the researchers would have nowhere to sue to undo those wrongs, unless their universities decided to sue in the Court of Federal Claims.”
What the Trump administration has argued
In justifying the grant suspensions in July, the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health each sent UCLA letters accusing the university of using race-based admissions, allowing transgender women to compete in women’s sports and not doing enough to address antisemitism on its campus.
But California barred public campuses from admitting students based on race in 1996 when voters through a ballot measure ended the practice. Representatives from the two science agencies wrote in July that though UCLA maintains it doesn’t use affirmative action, its “holistic review” admissions process is de-facto race-based admissions.
The letter from the National Science Foundation said the agency believes that “UCLA’s ‘holistic review’ admissions process, which considers factors such as an applicant’s neighborhood/zip code, family income, and school profile — and invites the disclosure of an applicant’s race via personal statements — is a transparent attempt to engage in race-based admissions in all but name.” The letter from the National Institutes of Health was virtually identical.
While the Supreme Court in 2023 overturned the use of race in college admissions in a 6-3 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that students are free to discuss their identities and how they overcame hardships in admissions essays.
“Nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise,” Roberts wrote.
All three criticisms in the agencies’ July letters matchthepolicies Trump is pursuing through executive actions to reshape higher education and the federal government. They also mirror the policy playbook fleshed out in Project 2025, a conservative publication that has shaped Trump’s current term in office.
UCLA addresses antisemitism
The UCLA grant suspensions followed a federal Department of Justice report in July that accused the campus of not doing enough to address antisemitism, particularly related to events during last year’s pro-Palestine protests and encampment. The report came months after UCLA commissioned a task force to investigate antisemitism on campus and come up with recommendations that UCLA leaders said they’d implement.
Trump’s settlement demand “does not make Jewish students safer,” the Jewish Public Affairs Committee of California said in a statement last month. The advocacy group is composed of 39 organizations that offer family services, political advocacy, immigration legal aid and other services.
The Jewish public affairs committee acknowledged several strides UC and UCLA made to curtail antisemitism and promote safer campuses. “Meaningful progress is already underway in California,” the group wrote.
The Lineage warehouse in Boyle Heights on August 31, 2026.
(
Brian Feinzeimer
/
The LA Local
)
Topline:
Lineage Logistics sued a solar power provider and its contractor Thursday, blaming them for the fire that destroyed its cold storage facility and plagued Boyle Heights and surrounding communities with polluted, foul-smelling air for months.
The lawsuit: The company accuses Altus Power, Inc., Los Palos Street Operating, LLC, and Pearce Services of failing to address faults in the massive solar array installed on the 500,000-square-foot facility’s roof. Lineage is seeking more than $1 billion in damages, alleging negligence and breach of contract caused the fire, forced the warehouse to shut down and led to a cleanup effort that has cost more than $100 million. Los Palos, an Altus subsidiary, disputed Lineage’s claims and said that since the cold storage company was the tenant of the building they were responsible for cleanup and debris removal.
The investigation: The fire remains under investigation by the Los Angeles Fire Department, and its cause has not yet been determined. But because both the June and 2024 fires appear to have started around the facility’s roof, the solar array has been long suspected of playing a role in the blaze.
Lineage Logistics sued a solar power provider and its contractor Thursday, blaming them for the fire that destroyed its cold storage facility and plagued Boyle Heights and surrounding communities with polluted, foul-smelling air for months.
The company accuses Altus Power, Inc., Los Palos Street Operating, LLC, and Pearce Services of failing to address faults in the massive solar array installed on the 500,000-square-foot facility’s roof. Faulty electrical in that array led to a fire in 2024, and the same problems sparked the fire on June 17, Lineage claims in the suit.
“This lawsuit is about Altus and Pearce starting this fire and then being nowhere to be found when the community needed help,” said Greg Lehmkuhl, president & CEO of Lineage, in a prepared statement.
The fire remains under investigation by the Los Angeles Fire Department, and its cause has not yet been determined.
But because both the June and 2024 fires appear to have started around the facility’s roof, the solar array has been long suspected of playing a role in the blaze.
Lineage is seeking more than $1 billion in damages, alleging negligence and breach of contract caused the fire, forced the warehouse to shut down and led to a cleanup effort that has cost more than $100 million.
Los Palos, an Altus subsidiary, disputed Lineage’s claims and said that since the cold storage company was the tenant of the building, they were responsible for cleanup and debris removal.
“Lineage’s statement is riddled with misinformation in a blatant attempt to deflect blame for their role in this matter, including any damage caused by the release of substances from the warehouse, not the solar panel,” a Los Palos spokesperson said by email.
A spokesperson for Pearce also disputed Lineage’s claims and said the company would be fighting the suit in court, adding they have been cooperating with the fire department’s investigation.
“Investigation into the fire’s cause, origin, and reasons for its spread remains ongoing, and it is premature for anyone to draw conclusions,” a spokesperson for the company said by email.
The company alleges in the suit that the solar provider used substandard equipment to connect electrical lines and that equipment started the Aug. 14, 2024 fire. The company told Altus, Los Palos, and Pearce, a subsidiary of real estate giant CBRE, to fix the faulty equipment before turning the solar array back on.
Altus and Pearce knew that about 200 faulty electrical connections had been identified by May 2026, including about 10 near the area where the June fire eventually broke out, the suit claims. Lineage says it told the contractors to delay turning the system back on until they provided proof the faults were fixed, but the contractors did so anyway.
“Altus and Pearce deliberately ignored Lineage’s request, prematurely re-energized the solar array, and negligently and recklessly caused this devastating fire,” the suit reads.
Mayor Karen Bass and other elected officials have said publicly that Lineage should not rebuild its facility and continue operating in Boyle Heights. The company missed a 45-day deadline to clean up the facility imposed by Bass in August.
Lineage has since announced it had completed cleanup of the remnants of the facility on Sept. 5. The suit also suggests the company could be planning to stay in Boyle Heights, rather than simply seeking reimbursement for the fire.
The city’s Department of Building and Safety has put its plans to rebuild on hold, and South Coast Air Quality Management District has also issued multiple notices of violation over pollution from food that rotted inside the facility for months.
“This was a solar fire, not a warehouse fire,” reads a press release announcing the suit had been filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court Thursday. “Cold storage is not a risk to communities — it is an essential service that lowers food costs, expands food access and creates jobs,” it added.
Fiona Ng
is LAist's deputy managing editor and leads a team of reporters who explore food, culture, history, events and more.
Published September 10, 2026 3:58 PM
Flowers are left at the Sept. 11 Memorial and Museum in 2024, which is located on the land where the Twin Towers once stood before they were destroyed.
(
Spencer Platt
/
Getty Images
)
Topline:
Here's a list of events in L.A. and O.C. counties on Friday and Saturday remembering 9/11.
Read on... to see when and where events are scheduled near you.
If you're enjoying this article, you'll love our daily newsletter, The LA Report. Each weekday, catch up on the 5 most pressing stories to start your morning in 3 minutes or less.
A new federal lawsuit filed Thursday accuses the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, the FBI and other federal agencies of violating the First Amendment and privacy rights of observers.
About the lawsuit: The lawsuit describes disturbing encounters seven Common Cause members had with federal officers in Maryland, Minnesota and New Jersey after trying to observe immigration enforcement. They include being photographed, followed, reported to police, pepper-sprayed or threatened with a visit to their home by federal officers. Federal officers did show up at one Common Cause member's Minnesota home.
Other lawsuits pending: The new lawsuit follows a handful of other cases brought by observers arguing First Amendment violations, but it is the most sweeping to date, as it includes incidents from multiple states and seeks national relief. It is asking a judge in Washington, D.C., to bar federal agencies from intimidating or retaliating against observers.
For months, Minneapolis resident Michael Khalili drove around the Twin Cities area observing and documenting the activities of federal immigration officers after they swarmed his city last winter as part of an unprecedented surge.
He points out that when federal immigration officers fatally shot fellow Minneapolis observer Alex Pretti in January, it was bystander videos that debunked inaccurate information Trump administration officials were spreading about Pretti, such as that he had committed an act of domestic terrorism and was a "would-be assassin."
"That's the only reason why the government's lies fell apart," Khalili said. "And that's why it's critical that people are out there."
But the 47-year-old father of two stopped observing ICE in recent months due to mounting risk and pressure from his family. Khalili said he follows the law when he drives behind ICE vehicles and is exercising his constitutional rights. But he said he's had repeated tense exchanges with federal officers who have taken photos of him and his vehicle, and told him to stop.
A day after one such exchange in March, Khalili's Global Entry status was revoked (until a HuffPost journalist inquired about it, and it was reinstated). On another occasion in May, he said a state trooper threatened him with a harassment charge for following ICE. Then in June, after 15 Minnesota activists were criminally indicted for conspiracy to impede or injure an officer, Khalili realized one of the counts against a defendant in that case was for following ICE vehicles across state lines in May on the same day Khalili had been warned he could be charged for following ICE. Khalili's wife became worried.
"She was concerned that federal agents could show up at our home and could arrest me in front of our children," Khalili said. "And so I agreed to stop doing this."
But Khalili hasn't given up his quest to hold the federal government accountable. He is now a named plaintiff in a new federal lawsuit filed Thursday, along with the nonprofit Common Cause, that accuses the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, the FBI and other federal agencies of violating the First Amendment and privacy rights of observers.
The new lawsuit follows a handful of other cases brought by observers arguing First Amendment violations, but it is the most sweeping to date, as it includes incidents from multiple states and seeks national relief. It is asking a judge in Washington, D.C. to bar federal agencies from intimidating or retaliating against observers.
"The right of citizens to criticize and hold our government accountable is the backbone of American democracy – and it is under attack," Common Cause's vice president for litigation, Maryam Jazini Dorcheh, told NPR. "We want to make sure we're promoting participation in the political process. And obviously, if government officials are criminalizing peaceful observation, that hinders our mission," Jazini Dorcheh said.
NPR did not receive an immediate response from DHS or DOJ about the lawsuit's allegations. The FBI declined to comment.
The lawsuit describes disturbing encounters seven Common Cause members had with federal officers in Maryland, Minnesota and New Jersey after trying to observe immigration enforcement. They include being photographed, followed, reported to police, pepper-sprayed or threatened with a visit to their home by federal officers. Federal officers did show up at one Common Cause member's Minnesota home.
Observers film as ICE agents leave a residence on Jan. 28, 2026 in Minneapolis. NPR has documented numerous instances of other people legally observing ICE, describing intimidation and threats from the federal government.
(
Stephen Maturen
/
Getty Images
)
In another instance, the suit alleges that ICE officers told local police to ban an unnamed Common Cause member from a public parking lot outside of an ICE facility in Maryland, where the member was observing, and told the member they knew who they were because they had put their face through a facial recognition database.
The 94-page complaint also draws from declarations filed in previous cases on behalf of observers in additional states, including Illinois, Maine and Tennessee.
The events described in the complaint are "not one-off activities. This is not about, like, 'Oh, some folks got out of hand in one place,'" said Danielle Lang, the vice president of voting rights and rule of law at the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center, which is litigating the case. "This is a top-down policy of retaliation and it needs to be addressed as such."
The lawsuit lists multiple directives from the Trump administration, including President Trump's National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7) and the DOJ's memo to operationalize it, which link impeding immigration enforcement and extreme views on migration to domestic terrorism. The NSPM-7 memo was the basis for the federal government to investigate and spy on activists in Minnesota, which ultimately led to the charges against 15 people for conspiracy to impede ICE.
Additionally, the suit lists public statements and internal memos that equate observers who record federal officers with "violent rioters" and "domestic terrorists," to argue there is a national policy in place to retaliate against observers. Furthermore, the Trump administration repealed guardrails that could have prevented federal officers from using facial recognition and license plate readers against peaceful observers, and DHS dismantled its Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, the suit argues.
The suit alleges that the federal government's retaliation against observers includes threatening force or arrest, collecting observers' personal information to intimidate them, using force, pursuing criminal charges, and imposing civil penalties such as administrative subpoenas or revoking observers' Global Entry or TSA PreCheck status.
Michael Khalili was eager to join the Common Cause lawsuit to help fellow observers, since in his case there is documentation of some of his encounters.
"If the paper trail for the petty things that they did to me can keep somebody else from being pepper-sprayed or murdered, like, why would I not do that? How could I not do that?" he told NPR.
Last month he requested access to his state motor vehicle records on the number of times law enforcement officials have queried his license plate, driver's license or name and date of birth. Before he started observing, there were only two such queries. But since March 2026, law enforcement queried him 55 times, a detail that is included in the lawsuit.
In addition, he has a March email from Customs and Border Protection notifying him that his Global Entry membership was revoked. Though the email only stated that the reason given for the change was "Your Global Entry has been revoked," it came one day after ICE officers stopped him, took photos of him and his license plate and told him to stop following them. Other observers in other states have also had their Global Entry status taken away, and some, like Khalili, had theirs reinstated after a reporter inquired.
Khalili still suspects he is on a federal list of some kind, or that there is a flag on him. He recently went on vacation to Ireland with his family and when returning to the U.S, he was referred for additional questioning by U.S. immigration officials.
He hopes this lawsuit can help bring about corrective changes and guardrails after what he calls a "nightmare" that the country and Minneapolis have been through.
"And so that not only will I be able to go out and observe if I so choose, but that there's no reason why I have to go out and observe," Khalili said.
Gab Chabrán
covers what's happening in food and culture for LAist.
Published September 10, 2026 2:06 PM
A finished pan of Chef Joshua Whigham's paella at Casa Leo's monthly Paella Drop, ready to be served to guests.
(
Courtesy Casa Leo
)
Topline:
Chef Joshua Whigham's monthly "paella drop" at Casa Leo in Los Feliz has grown from a 20-guest experiment into a waitlisted fixture.
Tell me more: Each version of his paella — from market mushrooms and truffle to chicken and langoustine — is rooted in a different Spanish region. Casa Leo was added to the Michelin Guide California this year — just over a year after opening.
Why is it important? Most Angelenos' idea of paella starts and stops at chicken, shrimp and saffron rice — the version built for tourists. Whigham, a 15-year veteran of award-winning chef José Andrés' kitchens, is using his monthly drop to highlight the dish’s variety with Southern California produce.
Mark the date: The next drop is on Sept. 20 and features a cuttlefish paella.
Casa Leo is a small Spanish restaurant located in Los Feliz near Griffith Park, where Chef Joshua Whigham is quietly bringing his own fresh approach to Spanish cooking — one that's specific and ingredient-driven in a way you'd be hard-pressed to find anywhere else in the city.
Whigham spent 15 years working under José Andrés — the Michelin-starred, James Beard Award-winning Spanish chef — before striking out on his own a little over a year ago with Casa Leo. The restaurant has already been added to the Michelin Guide California and has built a reputation for a seasonal, genuine, personal approach. That shows up across the menu, from cocas (Iberian flatbreads) to a trout en escabeche dish inspired by Martín Berasategui, the Basque chef often credited as a pioneer of modern Spanish cuisine.
Paella drop
One Sunday each month, Whigham hosts a "paella drop," cooking the paella outside the restaurant on a propane rig built to fit the giant pan he uses. Originally open to just 20 guests, the pop-up has grown in popularity as word has spread — Whigham has incrementally raised the cap over time, and now cooks with an even larger pan that can accommodate up to 70 guests.
It’s a setup that gets a lot of attention. He recalls a group of cyclists zipping by one day, with one of them yelling, "Holy shit, that smells good."
Chef Joshua Whigham stands beside the finished paella, cooked on a custom propane rig large enough to hold his oversized pan.
(
Courtesy CASA LEO
)
"Paella is Spain's national dish," Whigham says — and for many Americans, it's the only regional dish they know by name. Most Americans picture one version of paella — chicken, shrimp, saffron-yellow rice — but the dish looks different depending on where in Spain you are. While the dish has roots in the southeastern region of Valencia, its ingredients and preparation vary widely throughout the country.
Showcasing that variety is one of Whigham’s aims. And he does it with strict adherence to tradition — he'll never include chorizo, since its heavy smoke and paprika flavors, he says, completely overpower the subtle, delicate taste of the saffron, broth and rice.
In August, the paella included market mushrooms, summer truffle, chicken and langoustine.
The next drop, on Sept. 20 (which just so happens to be World Paella Day), is a cuttlefish (sepia) paella.
Whigham wanted the drops to serve as an opportunity to activate the space in ways beyond regular brunch and dinner service.
Not a tourist menu
Whigham says people's exposure to Spanish cuisine often stops at gazpacho, jamón, and that one paella experience they had while studying abroad in college.
His approach, honed over almost two decades of cooking Spanish food, involves first surveying a dish's regional origins and then adapting it using Southern California ingredients, in a process Whigham calls "giving a traditional dish a sense of place."
"That's the path I'm on — taking traditional dishes and making them ours,” he adds.
A plated portion of Casa Leo's paella, served with a side of aioli and topped with edible flowers and microgreens.
(
Casa Leo
)
For example: marmitako, a humble Basque fisherman's dish traditionally made with tuna and potato, with a base consisting of tomato, bell pepper, red onion and fish stock. Whigham noticed poblano peppers were "exploding at the market" and swapped them in for the green bell peppers, using the same process and proportions — resulting in a richer tone, more of a capsicum flavor and a "nice low-key heat." Paired with the chili de árbol spice, it made the dish "warmer and richer and a little deeper in flavor."
Less than two years in, Whigham says the Michelin recognition was a lovely surprise. "We weren't looking for it," he says. "This is what I do. I don't know how to do anything else but this."
Still, he feels the weight of its importance: "A good restaurant, you feel it — the pulse of it, the heartbeat. That's what I want for people."
Casa Leo
Location: 4500 Los Feliz Blvd., Suite C, Los Angeles
