The Brief

A scholarship for Black students at UC San Diego is now available to anyone, regardless of race, after students and a right-leaning nonprofit organization sued the university for discrimination this July.

The plaintiffs argued that the scholarship fund violated a series of laws, including the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, which was put in place to protect Black Americans in the South.

One of the students, Kai Peters, said he was denied access to the scholarship because he isn’t Black. Peters sent a written statement to CalMatters through the Californians for Equal Rights Foundation, the nonprofit plaintiff. He said his rejection is an example of “institutionalized racism” — a phrase that was created in part to characterize how government institutions discriminate against Black Americans.

“I don’t see the irony,” said Joshua Thompson, an attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, which represented the plaintiffs. “The idea is that we don’t want government actors out forcing their discrimination.”

The Black Alumni Scholarship Fund for UC San Diego students is now called the Goins Alumni Scholarship Fund, named after its founding donor Lennon Goins, according to a press release last week. Its website says each scholarship is worth $2,500 and that nearly 275 scholarships have been awarded since 2016.

The rebranded scholarship program is just one of numerous initiatives in California that have come under scrutiny in the last two years. Last summer, the Supreme Court overturned precedent that allowed private universities in the state to use affirmative action, and this year, the Trump Administration has ended numerous campus initiatives promoting diversity.

In March, the UC changed its hiring practices, banning its 10 campuses from requiring “diversity statements” as a condition for employment. Now those statements are voluntary.

Other changes are more subtle. In February, Bakersfield College described its “Chicano/Latino Pre-Commencement Event” as a means to “encourage Chicano/Latino students to participate in (graduation) celebrations.” But by the time graduation rolled around in May, the word “Chicano/Latino” had been removed from that sentence.

Website indicates change of focus

The press release about the Black Alumni Scholarship Fund didn’t address the reason for the change, and a spokesperson for the San Diego Foundation, Hiram Soto, declined to comment further.

But a CalMatters analysis of the fund’s website shows how the university changed course.

In September, the website said that the university scholarship fund was founded in 1983 by Goins to “expand educational opportunities for high achieving, civic-minded African American students,” focusing on admitted Black students with a record of “community service” and “resiliency to racial and other identity challenges.”

There was no mistake that this fund was by and for the Black community. “100% of BASF Scholars identify as Black/African American,” the website said, adding that the goal of the scholarship fund was to “increase Black graduation at UCSD from 2% to 5% of degrees awarded.”

Despite decades of scholarships, that goal remains unattained. In the 2023-24 school year, just under 3% of UC San Diego’s undergraduate degrees awarded went to students who identify as Black or African-American, according to the system’s data.

Racial discrimination is illegal in the U.S., but in California, the standard of what constitutes discrimination depends in part on whether an entity is public or private. While private entities, including nonprofits and foundations, have long offered scholarships and programs for certain racial or ethnic groups — arguing that spending money is a form of free speech — state agencies, including the UC campuses, are prohibited from any form of affirmative action after California voters passed Proposition 209 in 1996.

To avoid legal scrutiny, UC San Diego moved the Black Alumni Scholarship Fund to the private San Diego Foundation in 1998, according to the September iteration of the fund’s website.

But in the lawsuit, Thompson and his legal team alleged that the university has remained involved in the scholarship’s operation. “Our allegations were that (UC San Diego officials) were conspiring with a private entity to get around (Prop.) 209 and the Equal Protection Clause.” Specifically, he said the university was giving the San Diego Foundation information about which students identified as Black on their college applications and that the leadership of the fund included some university officials.

The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 prohibits government agencies from using private entities to discriminate. Back then, government agencies and law enforcement, especially in the South, often used private groups — most famously, the Ku Klux Klan — to terrorize Black communities.

By working with the private foundation to support Black students, UC San Diego is guilty of the same kind of “nefarious behavior” as the government and law enforcement agencies of the Jim Crow South, Thompson said. “This is the full tradition of our civil rights laws,” he said, citing both the Ku Klux Klan Act and more recent laws, such as Prop. 209. “We don't want the government to discriminate against people on the basis of race.”

Soon after filing the lawsuit, Thompson said the scholarship fund reached out to his legal team and agreed to change its name and to open up applications to students who didn’t identify as Black.

He said other changes may be on the horizon. In February, the Pacific Legal Foundation sued UC San Francisco’s Benioff Children’s Hospital regarding another program aimed at minority high school students. Thompson said the San Francisco university system is now negotiating how to continue with that program too.

These negotiations happen informally, so there’s no written settlement agreement to show how universities are responding and what changes actually occur.

Today, the scholarship fund website says its applications are to open to UC San Diego students who are involved in community service and those with a demonstrated “ability to overcome major challenges,” as well as other race-neutral criteria.

The website includes no mention of Black students.

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

A federal judge in San Francisco said on Tuesday the government's ban on Anthropic looked like punishment after the AI company went public with its dispute with the Pentagon over the military's potential uses of its artificial intelligence model, Claude.

U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin made the remark at the outset of a hearing about Anthropic's request for a preliminary injunction in one of its lawsuits against the Pentagon, which has designated the company a supply chain risk, effectively blacklisting it.

"It looks like an attempt to cripple Anthropic," Lin said, adding she was concerned that the government might be punishing Anthropic for openly criticizing the government's position.

Lin said she expected to make a ruling in the next few days on whether to temporarily pause the government's ban until the court decides on the merits of the case.

The hearing in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California is the latest development in a spat between one of the leading AI companies and the Trump administration, and it has implications for how the government can use AI more broadly.

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei announced in late February that he would not allow the company's Claude's AI model to be used for autonomous weapons, or to surveil American citizens. President Trump subsequently ordered all U.S. government agencies to stop using Anthropic's products.

The Pentagon designated Anthropic as a "supply chain risk" earlier this month, citing national security concerns. That designation is normally reserved for entities deemed to be foreign adversaries that could potentially sabotage U.S. interests.

Anthropic has filed two federal lawsuits alleging that this designation amounts to illegal retaliation against the company for its stance on AI safety. It argues that the label will cost it both customers and revenue, since it will bar Pentagon contractors from doing business with the company, as well.

The lawsuits, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., allege the Trump administration violated the company's First Amendment right to speech and exceeded the scope of supply chain risk law.

In Tuesday's hearing, lawyers for Anthropic said it was apparently the first time such a designation had been made against a U.S. company.

Lin said the Pentagon has a right to decide what AI products it wants to use. But she questioned whether the government broke the law when it banned its agencies from using Anthropic, and when Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that anyone seeking business with the Pentagon must cut relations with Anthropic.

She said the actions were "troubling" because they did not seem to be tailored to the national security concerns in question, which could be addressed by the Pentagon simply ceasing to use Claude. Instead, she said, it looked like the government was trying to punish Anthropic.

But a lawyer for the government argued that its actions were not retaliatory, and were based on Anthropic's disagreement with the government over how its AI model could be used — not the company's decision to speak out about it.

The government also argued that Anthropic is a risk because, theoretically, in the future the company could update Claude in a way that endangers national security.

Anthropic did not respond immediately to an emailed request for comment.

A Pentagon spokesperson said that the agency's policy is not to comment on ongoing litigation.

Copyright 2026 NPR

An oil pipeline that was shut down after a 2015 environmental disaster is flowing again after President Donald Trump issued an executive order earlier this month.

California mounted a legal fight against the pipeline this week. But environmentalists have won court rulings against the pipeline in recent years too.

Before state Attorney General Rob Bonta filed his suit, the Environmental Defense Center, a nonprofit focused on Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties, was already involved in its own ongoing lawsuit to keep the pipeline system shutdown. Last year, a judge granted the group a preliminary injunction to keep the pipeline closed.

“ It's a really dangerous project," said Linda Krop, chief counsel for the Environmental Defense Center. “It would not only cause harm to the environment, but it also threatens public health and safety and our local economy.”

The backstory

The pipeline runs through Gaviota State Park, known for its natural beauty and coastal biodiversity.

The 2015 Refugio Oil Spill released more than 123,000 gallons of crude into the waters off Santa Barbara’s Gaviota Coast, killing hundreds of birds and other wildlife, and spreading more than a hundred miles south into Los Angeles.

The Santa Ynez offshore oil platform and Las Flores Pipeline System responsible for the spill (then operated by Exxon) were shuttered — until the federal government ordered it to restart earlier this month, citing emergency powers and an energy crisis caused by the war in Iran.

Who gets to decide?

California regulators previously ruled that the company now operating the pipeline, Sable Offshore Corp., based in Houston, had to repair the pipeline system before operations could resume.

Krop said the federal government agreed in 2016 that the California fire marshal would have jurisdiction over the pipeline’s safety. And in 2020, she said, a court ruled that only the state could approve restarting the system — an agreement the federal government signed.

“It's not proper for the Trump administration or the secretary of energy to override a court order,” Krop said.

Now, the legal battle will be over who is in charge: the California fire marshal or the Department of Energy as ordered by Trump?

The Department of Energy did not respond to LAist’s request for comment.

Krop told LAist that Californians should be concerned from both an environmental and a constitutional perspective.

 “This is not just about Sable. This is about a constitutional crisis,” Krop said. “This is going to be the new precedent. … If they care about the ability of states to enforce their own laws, if they're worried about State Parks saying what can happen within their boundaries, then they should care about this.”

Is an energy crisis the real reason?

In a statement, Sable said the the federal intervention was “to address the energy scarcity and supply disruption risks caused by California policies that have left the region and U.S. military forces dependent on foreign oil.”

The U.S. is a net exporter of oil, though the global oil market’s complexity means that what is produced here doesn’t necessarily stay in the U.S.

Krop took issue with the characterization of an energy crisis to begin with, a sentiment shared by Bonta and other Democratic leaders in California.

Krop also challenged the assertion that restarting the pipeline would help lower gas prices.

“Gas prices are set on a global market, and right now they're influenced by what's happening in Iran and the war. This project will not make a bit of difference with gas prices,” Krop said. “People don't realize probably oil from this project, it's very heavy, low quality crude oil. There's not any guarantee that it's going to even make it to the gas pump.”

SANTA FE, N.M. — A New Mexico jury decided Tuesday that Meta knowingly harmed children's mental health and concealed what it knew about child sexual exploitation on its social media platforms, a verdict that signals a changing tide against tech companies and the government's willingness to crack down.

The landmark decision comes after a nearly seven-week trial, and as jurors in a federal court in California have been sequestered in deliberations for more than a week about whether Meta and YouTube should be liable in a similar case.

New Mexico jurors sided with state prosecutors who argued that Meta — which owns Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp — prioritized profits over safety. The jury determined Meta violated parts of the state's Unfair Practices Act on accusations the company hid what it knew about about the dangers of child sexual exploitation on its platforms and impacts on child mental health.

The jury agreed with allegations that Meta made false or misleading statements and also agreed that Meta engaged in "unconscionable" trade practices that unfairly took advantage of the vulnerabilities of and inexperience of children.

How much does Meta owe

Jurors found there were thousands of violations, each counting separately toward a penalty of $375 million. That's less than one-fifth of what prosecutors were seeking.

Meta is valued at about $1.5 trillion. The company's stock was up 5% in early after-hours trading following the verdict, a signal that shareholders were shrugging off the news and its potential impact on the company's business.

The social media conglomerate won't be forced to change its practices right away. It will be up to a judge — not a jury — to determine whether Meta's social media platforms created a public nuisance and whether the company should pay for public programs to address the harms. That second phase of the trial will happen in May.

A Meta spokesperson said the company disagrees with the verdict and will appeal.

"We work hard to keep people safe on our platforms and are clear about the challenges of identifying and removing bad actors or harmful content," the spokesperson said. "We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously, and we remain confident in our record of protecting teens online."

Attorneys for Meta said the company discloses risks and makes efforts to weed out harmful content and experiences, while acknowledging that some bad material gets through its safety net.

Other lawsuits against Meta over children's mental health

New Mexico's case was among the first to reach trial in a wave of litigation involving social media platforms and their impacts on children.

The trial that started Feb. 9. is one of the first in a torrent of lawsuits against Meta and comes as school districts and legislators want more restrictions on the use of smartphones in classrooms.

More than 40 state attorneys general have filed lawsuits against Meta, claiming it's contributing to a mental health crisis among young people by deliberately designing Instagram and Facebook features that are addictive.

"Meta's house of cards is beginning to fall," said Sacha Haworth, executive director of watchdog group The Tech Oversight Project. "For years, it's been glaringly obvious that Meta has failed to stop sexual predators from turning online interactions into real world harm."

Haworth pointed to whistleblowers like Arturo Bejar, as well as unsealed documents and other evidence, saying it painted a damning picture.

New Mexico's case relied on a state undercover investigation where agents created social media accounts posing as children to document sexual solicitations and Meta's response.

The lawsuit, filed in 2023 by New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, also says Meta hasn't fully disclosed or addressed the dangers of social media addiction. Meta hasn't agreed that social media addiction exists, but executives at trial acknowledged "problematic use" and say they want people to feel good about the time they spend on Meta's platforms.

"Evidence shows not only that Meta invests in safety because it's the right thing to do but because it is good for business," Meta attorney Kevin Huff told jurors in closing arguments. "Meta designs its apps to help people connect with friends and family, not to try to connect predators."

Tech companies have been protected from liability for material posted on their social media platforms under Section 230, a 30-year-old provision of the U.S. Communications Decency Act, as well as a First Amendment shield.

New Mexico prosecutors say Meta still should be responsible for its role in pushing out that content through complex algorithms that proliferate material that can be harmful for children.

"We know the output is meant to be engagement and time spent for kids," prosecution attorney Linda Singer said. "That choice that Meta made has profound negative impacts on kids."

What the New Mexico jury reviewed

The New Mexico trial examined a raft of Meta's internal correspondence and reports related to child safety. Jurors also heard testimony from Meta executives, platform engineers, whistleblowers who left the company, psychiatric experts and tech-safety consultants.

The jury also heard testimony from local public school educators who struggled with disruptions linked to social media, including sextortion schemes targeting children.

In reaching a verdict, the jury considered whether social media users were misled by specific statements about platform safety by Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Instagram head Adam Mosseri and Meta global head of safety Antigone Davis.

In deliberations, the jury used a checklist of allegations from prosecutors that Meta failed to disclose what it knew about problems with enforcing its ban on users under 13, the prevalence of social media content about teen suicide, the role of Meta algorithms in prioritizing sensational or harmful content, and more.

Juror Linda Payton, 38, said the jury reached a compromise on the estimated number of teenagers affected by Meta's platforms, while opting for the maximum penalty per violation. With a maximum $5,000 penalty for each violation, she said she thought each child was worth the maximum amount.

ParentsSOS, a coalition of families who have lost children to harm caused by social media, called the verdict a "watershed moment."

"We parents who have experienced the unimaginable — the death of a child because of social media harms — applaud this rare and momentous milestone in the years-long fight to hold Big Tech accountable for the dangers their products pose to our kids," the group said in a statement.
Copyright 2026 NPR

Members of Congress are now facing a personal consequence from the ongoing shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security: losing one special flight perk.

Delta Airlines is pausing special services that make flights more convenient and efficient for members of Congress, as first reported by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

"Due to the impact on resources from the longstanding government shutdown, Delta will temporarily suspend specialty services to members of Congress flying Delta," the airline said in a statement to NPR. "Next to safety, Delta's no. 1 priority is taking care of our people and customers, which has become increasingly difficult in the current environment."

Specialty services include airport escorts and other red coat services. Delta said lawmakers will be treated like any other passenger based on their SkyMiles status.

This comes a week after Delta CEO Ed Bastian told CNBC he's "outraged" by the ongoing shutdown, which has led to TSA officers working without pay.

"It's inexcusable that our security agents, our frontline agents, that are essential to what we do, are not being paid, and it's ridiculous to see them being used as political chips," he said.

The Department of Homeland Security, which includes TSA, has been in a partial shutdown since mid-February.

The shutdown means TSA officers are working without pay, and has led to widespread staff shortages and long wait times for travelers.

Other major airlines did not respond to NPR about imminent changes to their specialty services. A spokesperson for Southwest Airlines told NPR the airline "continues to engage with our federal partners and joins the airline industry in urging Congress to fund the TSA and CBP without further delay."

DHS ongoing shutdown

In the wake of the killing of two U.S. citizens by immigration enforcement officers in Minneapolis, Congressional Democrats said they wouldn't vote to fund DHS until changes — specifically for Immigration and Customs Enforcement — were put into place.

Senate Democrats and the White House have been trading proposals back and forth for weeks, with little progress.

Democrats have pushed to fund DHS with carveouts to not fund ICE and CBP to alleviate the TSA pain points as negotiations continue

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Saturday that Democrats are having "productive conversations" on ICE reforms but that it's an ongoing process "that should not get in the way of funding our TSA workers."

"Let's keep negotiating the outstanding issues with ICE while sending paychecks to TSA workers now," Schumer said. "Let us end those long lines at the airport now. This is the logical, expedient, correct thing to do."

Republicans thus far have objected to votes on those proposals, pressing to fund the entire department.

Last week, a bill from Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, to prohibit preferential screening at airports for members of Congress cleared the Senate. It has not yet been taken up by the House of Representatives.

Copyright 2026 NPR