The Brief

Even though Los Angeles Unified dropped its COVID vaccine mandate for school staff almost a year ago, a lawsuit accusing the district of violating workers’ rights can still move forward, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Friday.

The 2-1 ruling by a pair of federal judges appointed by former President Donald Trump revives a case that a lower court had dismissed. It also counters recent rulings by courts — including the 9th Circuit — that tossed lawsuits challenging expired COVID-19 rules on the grounds that the policies were no longer in effect.

The judges in the majority wrote that this case was different because they found L.A. Unified demonstrated a pattern of “withdrawing and reinstating its vaccination policies” over the course of the lawsuit.

“Accordingly, LAUSD has not carried its heavy burden to show that there is no reasonable possibility that it will again revert to imposing a similar policy,” the opinion states.

They also indicated they were open to arguments over the effectiveness of the vaccine, which the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention describes as a safe way to build immunity against COVID-19.

“At this stage, we must accept Plaintiffs’ allegations that the vaccine does not prevent the spread of COVID-19 as true,” Judge Ryan Nelson wrote. The opinion characterizes that aspect of the ruling as preliminary and something that would be argued at a lower court.

In a concurring opinion, Judge Daniel Collins invoked Supreme Court precedent that “compulsory treatment for the health benefit of the person treated — as opposed to compulsory treatment for the health benefit of others — implicates the fundamental right to refuse medical treatment.”

The plaintiffs alleged that the vaccines do not prevent someone from becoming infected with COVID-19 and characterized it as a treatment rather than a “traditional vaccine.”

They argued that by requiring employees to get the COVID shot, the school district was interfering with workers’ rights to refuse medical treatment.

“No one with any credibility would tell you that the vaccine prevented COVID or stopped the spread,” said John Howard, a San Diego attorney who argued the case on behalf of a handful of Los Angeles Unified employees and an Idaho-based group called the Health Freedom Defense Fund that’s filed several other COVID vaccine lawsuits.

“But when the hysteria was going on, that’s exactly what pharmaceutical companies and others said,” Howard said. “It was false.”

The CDC says: “COVID-19 vaccines are effective at protecting people from getting seriously ill, being hospitalized, and dying.”

A 2022 study published in the medical journal Lancet found COVID vaccines reduced symptoms in infected people, but did not necessarily slow transmission, although previous research indicated vaccines were effective in slowing the spread of early COVID variants. The Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus Resource Center states that COVID vaccines likely “reduce the risk of virus transmission but probably not completely in everyone.”

The school district can appeal the ruling to a larger panel of judges on the 9th Circuit, which covers nine states and has been considered the most liberal of the nation’s appellate circuits. If the new ruling stands, the lawsuit would return to the U.S. District Court for Central California in Los Angeles for further arguments.

“We are reviewing the 9th Circuit ruling and assessing the district’s options,” a spokesperson for the district said late Friday.

Lindsay Wiley, a law professor at UCLA and director of the school’s Health Law and Policy Program, said the judges’ finding against a government intervention is “extremely rare.”

“Judges applying this test are supposed to be highly deferential to the government’s rationale and scientific findings,” Wiley said. “It’s also notable that the judges in the majority went out of their way to reach the merits of the plaintiffs’ claim.”

Perhaps most importantly, she said, the judges in the majority said the century-old law that upholds vaccine requirements “does not apply unless the vaccine is effective in protecting others, not just the vaccinated person. This analysis is surprising and, I think, misguided.”

The ruling could have a “chilling effect” on government attempts to require vaccines in the future, Wiley said. “Governments should be careful to build the evidence base for their vaccination requirements, which are increasingly challenged by well-financed anti-vaccination groups in court.”

Courts toss lawsuits over expired COVID rules

Courts recently have dismissed similar complaints because California’s COVID public health emergency expired a year ago, ending state measures such as mask mandates and lockdowns.

In 2022, a 9th Circuit panel of 11 judges ruled that a lawsuit against Gov. Gavin Newsom over COVID-related school closures couldn’t move forward since schools had reopened and “there was no longer a live controversy.” Another ruling, last month in a California state appeals court, drew a similar conclusion in a lawsuit against Newsom over COVID safety guidelines.

In a dissenting opinion to the L.A. case, 9th Circuit Judge Michael Hawkins extensively cited the 2022 ruling on California school closures. He was appointed to the court by former President Bill Clinton.

“This case is over,” he wrote. “We cannot grant the sole relief sought by the Plaintiffs, an injunction against enforcement of the school district’s now rescinded COVID-19 vaccination policy.”

L.A. Unified's COVID vaccine mandate

The lawsuit against L.A. Unified stems from the district’s initial policy from March 2021 requiring all employees to show proof of having the COVID vaccine or risk losing their jobs. A group of employees sued, and the district tweaked the policy to allow employees to show a negative COVID test if they didn’t want to get the vaccine.

A judge dismissed that suit, but, in August 2021, the district re-instated the vaccine mandate as schools re-opened for in-person instruction. The employees filed another suit, this time with the Health Freedom Defense Fund.

L.A. Unified, the nation’s second largest school district with more than 600,000 students, closed for in-person instruction for more than a year during the pandemic, like most school districts in California. Los Angeles was hit hard by the disease. As of last week, nearly 36,000 people in L.A. County have died of COVID, one of the highest per-capita mortality rates in California and far above the national average, according to public health data.

In August 2021, the United Teachers of Los Angeles union voted to support the district’s vaccine mandate. Still, some district employees lost their jobs due to the district’s mandate, Howard said.

“People lost their homes, their careers. Some people had to leave the state. They had literally gone broke because of what L.A. Unified did to them,” he said. “It was appalling.”

Local ice cream chain Wanderlust Creamery offers a sweet relief from this week’s sweltering temperatures. From ube to mango sticky rice, its unique signature and seasonal flavors can be found across Los Angeles and Orange counties.

Founder and chef Adrienne Borlongan sat down with Austin Cross, who hosts AirTalk every Friday, to discuss Wanderlust’s travel-inspired flavors.

About the owner

Borlongan initially thought that she would be a nurse. But after spending two years completing nursing prerequisites, she pivoted to a degree in food science and worked as a bartender for almost a decade.

Adrienne Borlongan, founder and chef of Wanderlust Creamery, is also a food scientist.

(

Lindy Lin

)

One day, her roommate brought home an ice cream maker.

“And that kind of just snowballed into this crazy ice cream obsession,” Borlongan recalled.

She founded Wanderlust with her partner Jon-Patrick Lopez in 2015.

What sets the store apart?

Wanderlust’s flavors come from places Borlongan has either traveled to or has on her travel bucket list.

Many of the flavors are inspired by Borlongan’s Filipino-American heritage, including a best-selling ube malted crunch. It also features flavors like Ashta, a clotted cream from the Middle East.

The ultimate Wanderlust experience, according to the chef

Wanderlust Creamery is known for flavors from all over the world.

(

Courtesy Wanderlust Creamery

)

You're encouraged to try as many samples as your heart desires. Wanderlust’s staff are trained to guide anyone through the flavors and talk you through options before you make a decision.

What’s next for Wanderlust? 

Borlongan is working on innovating new flavors for the summer, including an ice cream based on Swedish candies. She’s trying to whip up a mixture that’s able to keep the gummies chewy while frozen in ice cream.

Wanderlust is also opening a new location in San Diego.

Shop details

• Wanderlust’s ice cream has less air compared to traditional ice cream, making it rich and creamy. 
• Its seasonal menu items include Buontalenti, honey butter corn, Kaya toast, white peach verbena, Icelandic milk chocolate and Ashta. 
• The local ice cream shop has locations in Atwater Village, Fairfax, Pasadena, Sawtelle, Venice, Irvine, Costa Mesa and Torrance. 

Menu items we tried

• Ube malted crunch (malted milk, malted milkballs, and ube) 
• Stick rice and mango (rice milk, coconut cream, salt, Alphonso mangoes)
• White peach verbena (peach, lemon verbena)

What should we try next?

An Orange County Superior Court judge this week found that Orange County Board of Education member Marilyn “Mari” Barke failed to report millions of dollars in assets and income in her annual economic disclosure filings over multiple years.

Barke will have to pay nearly $82,000 in penalties, as well as attorneys’ fees, according to a proposed decision statement. The fees could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

What’s next? 

State court rules allow parties 15 days to file objections to the proposed decision. After that, the court will be able to enter a final judgment.

About the case

Barke was elected to the OC Board of Education in 2018, and she currently serves as a board trustee. She is also the director of coalitions at the California Policy Center, an educational non-profit.

Under the California Political Reform Act, local elected officials are required to disclose their income, investments and other assets.

Barke filed amended financial statements for 2018 through 2021, following a complaint by private citizen made in February 2023. The Fair Political Practices Commission in 2024 found Barke liable on 16 counts for failing to report that income. Barke agreed to a settlement and paid a $3,200 penalty.

The judge later found that the FPPC’s settlement did not fully address the “willfulness/recklessness” or “adequacy of corrective efforts,” according to the proposed decision statement from Orange County Superior Court Judge H. Shaina Colover.

According to the court records, Barke argued that the mistakes in her filings were because she was following the advice of her now ex-husband, Dr. Jeff Barke, who she says advised her that the filings only needed to list economic interests if they conflicted with her role on the board.

Colover's response was that Barke’s reliance on that alleged advice was objectively unreasonable and wrong.

The response

Lynne Riddle, a retired judge who filed the complaint, said in a statement that financial interest disclosures are critical to the public.

“When elected officials flout their disclosure obligations like this, it undermines the public's right to honest and ethical government,” stated Riddle, who has published op-eds about charter schools and the OC Board of Education. “The Court’s decision vindicates the public’s right to know what their elected officials are doing.”

Riddle said the ruling and penalties should send a clear message that elected officials cannot shirk their responsibilities to disclose their economic interests.

Barke’s lawyer, Mark Rosen, in a statement to LAist, said: "From the start, this case was a vendetta against Mrs. Barke because she supports charter schools."

“As a first-time candidate, she made some technical mistakes in her forms with the Fair Political Practices Commission, and she freely admitted and corrected those mistakes and paid a fine,” Rosen said. “The anti-charter schools gang then piled on with this frivolous lawsuit.”

There are mistakes in the court’s decision, and “we are exploring a further course of action,” Rosen added.

Thinking about buying or leasing an electric car in the near future? California will soon be making that cheaper.

On Monday, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation that sets aside millions of dollars in state funds to fund rebates for residents who buy or lease a zero-emission vehicle — a category that includes battery-electric cars and hydrogen fuel cell-powered vehicles.

First-time EV buyers can qualify for a $3,500 discount when buying or leasing a new electric vehicle, as long as the retail price is under $50,000. If you’re looking for a used electric car, there’s still a price reduction available — a smaller one, however: $1,750 off for vehicles retailing for under $25,000.

The state’s program — called “MyFirstEV” — comes a year after President Donald Trump’s massive spending and tax plan known as the One Big Beautiful Bill ended federal tax credits for EVs nationwide. Previously, American consumers could claim a $7,500 tax credit after buying a new EV or $4,000 for used EVs.

Newsom said on Monday that as the federal government pulls back from supporting EVs, California would instead be “putting its foot on the accelerator” — and that the instant rebate program would “[make] it easier for families to drive clean, breathe clean, and keep more money in their pockets.”

The program has secured $270 million in funding — half of that from the state budget and the other from participating EV automakers.

One big thing to know: Despite the fanfare, the MyFirstEV program has not yet started — and we don’t have an official start date either. State officials will reveal next month which car brands are actually included, so don’t expect to receive this discount if you purchase an EV today.

Who qualifies for this program?

Only California residents who are buying or leasing an EV for the first time are eligible for this rebate.

And consumers will have to confirm that this is the first time they are buying or leasing an EV before taking their car home, said Lindsay Buckley, communications director of the California Air Resources Board, the agency tasked with managing the program.

“Participants will be required to sign a legal document declaring that this is in fact their first purchase or lease of an electric vehicle,” she said.

“So if you’ve already bought or leased an electric vehicle in the past, then you wouldn’t be eligible for this program.”

Limiting the program to first-time buyers could actually help boost the popularity of EVs among people who have never bought them, said Scott Moura, a UC Berkeley professor of civil engineering.

“Providing incentive to people who have bought EVs before isn’t really adding to the number of people who purchase EVs,” he said. “The funds can be used most effectively if they’re targeted towards first-time EV buyers.”

Do I need to apply ahead of time?

No — there’s no application to fill out ahead of time. Once state officials announce that the MyFirstEV program has officially begun, all you need to do is go to a dealership of a participating automaker.

This is different from other past state rebate programs — like the now-terminated Electric Bicycle Incentive Program — which have required participants to fill out an application before making a purchase.

If you move forward with making a purchase or lease, confirm two things with the salesperson and the financing team:

• That you qualify for the MyFirstEV discount
• That there are still state funds available for this specific car brand.

When federal EV rebates were available, buyers had to initially wait until they filed their taxes the year after buying their car to request this money back. But state officials say that folks interested in the FirstEV discount won’t have to wait so long.

“Once launched, Californians will be able to go down to participating automakers’ dealerships and access the rebates at the point of sale,” Buckley said. “They won’t have any delay in getting this discount.”

Can the program help me pay for any EV I want?

No — MyFirstEV discounts will only cover battery-electric cars and hydrogen fuel cell-powered vehicles from automakers participating in the program. State officials will confirm next month which car companies are included.

But this means that if an EV brand you really want to purchase is not on the list, you won’t get the discount when buying or leasing the car.

Hybrid vehicles are also not included in MyFirstEV, state officials confirmed with KQED.

There’s also a price limit: The EV you choose must cost under $50,000 if it’s a new car, and $25,000 if it’s used. There is, however, a small exception to this price rule if the automaker is headquartered in California — in which case the discounts will apply regardless of the manufacturer’s retail price. More than a dozen electric car brands are based in the Golden State, with several selling models priced beyond the $50,000 limit.

I’m really interested in this program. What should I do while I wait for it to open?

While consumers wait for the program to begin, Buckley said they learn as much as they can about different EVs available on the market.

“Maybe head to a dealership and take a test drive of an electric vehicle that you’re eyeing,” she said. “We do expect this to be a popular program and for [funds] to get gobbled up pretty quickly” — so the more prepared you are when the program officially begins, the better.

A Polestar electric car prepares to park at an EV charging station on July 28, 2023, in Corte Madera. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
Potential buyers can also learn about what it takes to care for an EV, like how to find charging stations and battery maintenance.

Buckley said the site ElectricForAll — created by the nonprofit Veloz — is a good source of information.

Will some carmakers have more rebates available than others?

No — funds will be divided equally among the participating automakers.

However, there may be greater demand for some brands, which could mean that rebates may run out faster at some dealerships.

This article includes reporting from KQED’s Laura Klivans.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration advise consumers to avoid eating shredded iceberg lettuce at Taco Bell locations in Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and West Virginia.

Health officials analyzed 190 cases of cyclospora in Michigan where a person who fell ill reported eating at Taco Bell. Officials found that 90% of those people said they ate iceberg lettuce.

More than 1,644 sick people in this multi-state cyclospora outbreak reported eating at Taco Bell in those states starting May 13, according to the agencies. There have been 94 hospitalizations and no deaths reported.

The FDA traced this subset of cases identified nationwide to a single supplier of contaminated iceberg lettuce from Mexico, but did not name the supplier.

FDA says it's working with the supplier to identify other locations where the contaminated lettuce has been distributed. The agency notes this is one large cluster that is epidemiologically related. There are other clusters across the country that may or may not be associated. Cases have been identified in 34 states.

Taco Bell issued a statement July 16 that it took "immediate action to voluntarily remove potentially impacted lettuce from a supplier in select states." The statement also said the lettuce would be removed from the supply chain nationwide and replaced within 24 hours.

A wide reach for salad suppliers

The Associated Press, citing an unnamed federal official, has reported that Taylor Farms was the supplier of the lettuce. NPR has not independently confirmed that, and Taylor Farms has not responded to a request for comment.

A handful of big players with integrated supply chains and advanced processing infrastructure, including Taylor Farms, dominate the bagged lettuce and salad industry in the U.S.

With such a big reach, a single supplier can provide lettuce products to a number of retailers, so it's possible that additional clusters of cyclospora around the country could be linked to lettuce from the same supplier. It's also possible that there are multiple sources and suppliers linked to other cases around the country.

The FDA and CDC say the investigation is continuing.

How to protect yourself

The symptoms of the illness include watery diarrhea, loss of appetite and fatigue, and people contract it by eating or drinking contaminated food or water.

To protect yourself from the parasite, the CDC advises people to follow standard food safety handling protocols. "Wash your hands and any fresh produce thoroughly under running water before eating, cutting or cooking. This will reduce the risk of infection. Cooking kills the parasite, so heating food to 158 F or 70 C or higher is effective," said Dr. Gwen Biggerstaff with the CDC's Division of Foodborne, Waterborne, and Environmental Diseases.

If people do develop symptoms, health officials advise people to contact their healthcare providers to be tested specifically for cyclospora. Routine stool tests often don't include that test.

"People with symptoms should stay well-hydrated and avoid preparing food for others while acutely ill, out of general caution, even though person-to-person spread is very unlikely," Biggerstaff said.

Copyright 2026 NPR