Sponsored message
Logged in as
Audience-funded nonprofit news
radio tower icon laist logo
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
Subscribe
  • Listen Now Playing Listen
  • Listen Now Playing Listen

The Brief

The most important stories for you to know today
  • Hasna Maznavi founded the first women only mosque
    A woman medium skin tone and dark wavy hair, wearing a blue floral dress smiles.
    Hasna Maznavi, the LA-based founder of the first all women’s mosque in the US, dies at 39.

    Topline:

    M. Hasna Maznavi, one of the co-founders of the Women’s Mosque of America in Los Angeles, died Wednesday from complications related to Type 1 diabetes, her family said in a statement. She was 39.

    Her legacy: In 2014, she founded the first women-led Muslim house of worship in the U.S. when the Women’s Mosque of America opened its doors. It is led by women, for women and only open to women.

    Family's tribute: In a statement to her LAist, the Maznavi family said, “Hasna’s legacy is one of creativity, compassion, and unwavering commitment to fostering unity across diverse communities. Her work will continue to inspire and uplift for generations to come. She will be profoundly missed by her family, friends, and all who knew her.”

    M. Hasna Maznavi, one of the co-founders of the Women’s Mosque of America in Los Angeles, died Wednesday from complications related to Type 1 diabetes, her family said in a statement. She was 39.

    Maznavi was also a comedy writer, director and performer whose work focused on the authentic portrayal of Islam, Muslims and other underrepresented communities in the media. In 2014, she founded the first women-led Muslim house of worship in the U.S. when the Women’s Mosque of America opened its doors. It is led by women, for women and only open to women.

    Maznavi told AirTalk’s Larry Mantle in 2015 that she created the mosque to “provide a platform for female Muslim scholars and female professionals and authorities, religious authorities, to be heard by the masses.”

    The mosque, she added, was a safe space for women to grow.

    “This mosque really starts as a childhood dream I had of building a mosque before I die, something that would give back after I was gone,” she said.

    For her work in creating a safe space for empowering women, she was recognized as one of CNN’s 25 influential American Muslims in 2018.

    A lasting legacy

    Najeeba Syeed, El-Hibri endowed professor of interfaith studies and executive director of Interfaith at Augsburg University, called the mosque “beyond what many of us could have imagined.”

    Syeed said Mazvani's death has been felt across the nation.

    “She invited women to share an intergenerational experience of learning, activism, study and fellowship. I’ve received texts from women across the country mourning her passing and remembering how much she built community for all of us,” Syeed told LAist. “We’re so very sad to lose her and praying God blesses her for all her amazing efforts in this lifetime and her life’s work that brought so many Muslim women together.”

    She will be profoundly missed by her family, friends, and all who knew her.
    — Statement from the Maznavi family

    Faisal Buharie, a community leader based in Orange County, said Maznavi, who was of Sri Lankan descent, helped elevate “Sri Lankan Muslim representation in American society through her work in entertainment and civic engagement.”

    Buharie called Maznavi “a person of extraordinary compassion who put others’ needs before own. The memory of her kindness and love will continue to live in our hearts.”

    In a statement to LAist, the Maznavi family said: “Hasna’s legacy is one of creativity, compassion, and unwavering commitment to fostering unity across diverse communities. Her work will continue to inspire and uplift for generations to come. She will be profoundly missed by her family, friends, and all who knew her.”

    Services are planned

    Janaza (funeral) prayers for Maznavi will be held at the Islamic Society of Orange County in Garden Grove at 11 a.m., April 5, followed by the burial at the Artesia Cemetery in Cerritos at 12:30 p.m.

  • The meaning behind the hopeful World Cup chant
    A medium skin toned man holds a large Mexican flag, his arms raised. It's nighttime. A young girl wearing a green Mexico jersey helps him hold the flag.
    Despite Mexico’s 2-3 loss against England on Sunday, the chant “¿Y si sí?” took on a new kind of power for Mexico fans during the team’s World Cup run.

    Topline:

    As Mexico took on England in the World Cup’s Round of 16 on Sunday, fans had one thing to say: “¿Y si sí?”

    What does it mean? The chant means, “What if yes?” What if the Mexican national team wins the World Cup? What if Mexico breaks (more) historic records? It’s full of hope and optimism. (Mexico ultimately was knocked out by England, 3-2.)

    Read on … for why the phrase hits home with so many Mexican soccer fans.

    As Mexico took on England in the World Cup’s Round of 16 on Sunday, fans had one thing to say: “¿Y si sí?”

    The chant translates to “What if, yes?” It refers to the swirling hope of: what if the Mexican national team wins the World Cup? What if Mexico breaks (more) historic records? What if?

    The saying grew louder after Mexico ended a 40-year curse with a 2-0 win against Ecuador last week. The national team had not won a World Cup knockout game since 1986. Not only did the team advance to the Round of 16 knockout stage, but it did so without conceding a single goal.

    Despite Mexico’s 3-2 loss against England on Sunday, “¿Y si sí?” took on a new kind of power for Mexico fans during the team’s World Cup run, especially in Southern California.

    What does the phrase mean for fans? 

    Jorge Leal, an assistant professor of history at UC Riverside, told LAist the term has grown in popularity in the last couple of weeks.

    “It's a way of saying maybe it can happen this time. It gives people a new chant, and it's hopeful,” Leal said. “From being ‘Si se puede,’ which is a great phrase, but it's very tentative, to the ‘¿Y si, sí?’ I think it's a little more affirmative.”

    “¿Y si sí?” is more empowering, whereas “Si se puede” is more aspirational, Leal added.

    Sebastian Garcia said the phrase started off as more of a joke at the top of the tournament.

    “Everyone kind of knew Mexico's history, and it was like it'd be cool, but it wouldn't happen,” Garcia said. “And then, as they started playing and they started winning … you start believing it, and then it kind of takes you over.”

    What makes this team different? 

    There are many reasons why this Mexican national team differs from previous years.

    “We cannot discount that they're playing at home, and that home advantage is huge,” Leal said. “This national team came together with really low expectations. People were very skeptical, myself included. There's a couple really great players, but most of them are young or improving.”

    Throughout the global tournament, however, that skepticism turned into optimism.

    “This national team has beaten the odds,” Leal said. “We were not expecting much of them, but now we can dream that they're going to beat expectations.”

    Nevertheless, Sunday’s loss was heartbreaking, Leal said.

    https://www.instagram.com/p/DaPQ-RyA7jA/

    Why it matters 

    Mari Garcia said Mexican Americans, and Latinos overall, have been feeling so much uncertainty in the last year, especially following last summer’s ICE raids.

    “Another soccer player, when asked about that phrase, he said ‘¿Por que no?’ (Why not?), and I think that's simply the answer,” Mari said. “(It’s) reaffirming that we are capable of doing anything.”

    Mexico’s run was more than 20 days of euphoria that show how unifying global events can be, Leal added.

    “We have been in an era that ethnic Mexicans, Mexican Americans, Chicanos, people of Mexican descent - we have been under persecution,” Leal said.

    As the World Cup continues on, Leal said, what keeps us from continuing the watch parties and collectivity?

    “Obviously, the ones for the Mexican team are much more fun, but … I think in L.A., in a region that sorely needs this type of collective event, we can see how they can bring people together,” Leal said. “It's very bittersweet, but I think that we can … rejoice that it happened, that we lived through this very special three-and-a-half weeks.”

  • Sponsored message
  • Man sues agency after agents tracked him down
    Two screenshots from a security camera, side by side, showing a man and a woman, both wearing dark blue jackets, approaching the front door of a home. There is a bicycle propped up against a railing to the left of the photos.
    Two federal agents in blue jackets stand on David Streever's porch at his home in Rochester, N.Y.

    Topline:

    Rochester, N.Y. resident David Streever is suing the Department of Homeland Security after federal agents tried last month to track him down and give him a warning notice alleging that he had potentially violated the law when he wrote a harsh email months earlier to the former head of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

    About the lawsuit: Filed by the nonprofit Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression on Monday in federal court in Washington, D.C., the lawsuit argues that Streever's January email was protected speech and the federal agents' and their superiors violated Streever's First Amendment rights. FIRE's lawsuit says the First Amendment protects Americans' rights to speak out against police but says the "Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is actively threatening that freedom, tracking down and retaliating against speakers like Plaintiff David Streever because he exercised his fundamental right to criticize one of the highest-ranking law enforcement officers in the United States."
    The backstory: Streever wrote to Todd Lyons, who stepped down as the acting director of ICE at the end of May, on Jan. 26 after federal immigration officers in Minneapolis fatally shot two U.S. citizen observers during the immigration enforcement surge there. The three-paragraph note compared Lyons to a Nazi and predicted that Lyons would be tormented by his own conscience. It has the subject line, "What's next." Five months later, on June 23, two HSI agents rang the doorbell of Streever's Rochester home and then left a document with Streever's wife for him to sign. It was labeled "WARNING NOTICE" and "YOU MAY BE IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW," and described federal laws that make it a crime to threaten federal officials.

    Federal agents with Homeland Security Investigations tried to track down Rochester, N.Y. resident David Streever last month and give him a warning notice alleging that he had potentially violated the law when he wrote a harsh email months earlier to the former head of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

    Now a lawsuit filed by the nonprofit Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression on Monday in federal court in Washington, D.C. argues Streever's January email was protected speech and the federal agents' and their superiors violated Streever's First Amendment rights.

    NPR reported last week about HSI agents trying to contact Streever first at his home and later at a hotel over an email that Streever wrote to Todd Lyons, who stepped down as the acting director of ICE at the end of May.

    FIRE's lawsuit says the First Amendment protects Americans' rights to speak out against police but says the "Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is actively threatening that freedom, tracking down and retaliating against speakers like Plaintiff David Streever because he exercised his fundamental right to criticize one of the highest-ranking law enforcement officers in the United States."

    The suit goes on to say, "Our Constitution does not tolerate such a brazen abuse of authority."

    Streever wrote to Lyons' government email address on Jan. 26 after federal immigration officers in Minneapolis fatally shot two U.S. citizen observers during the immigration enforcement surge there.

    The three-paragraph note compared Lyons to a Nazi and predicted that Lyons would be tormented by his own conscience. It has the subject line, "What's next."

    Five months later, on June 23, two HSI agents rang the doorbell of Streever's Rochester home and then left a document with Streever's wife for him to sign. It was labeled "WARNING NOTICE" and "YOU MAY BE IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW," and described federal laws that make it a crime to threaten federal officials. The notice said ICE's Office of Professional Responsibility had identified an email to Lyons that may violate federal law and the office "is requesting that you promptly remove and/or discontinue the aforementioned behavior."

    The bottom of the form reads, "Receipt of this Notice will be taken into consideration, should you continue to be involved in any criminal activities described above."

    Streever was taking his 7-year-old daughter on a vacation to a Finnish theme park when the agents visited his home. He and his daughter landed at New York City's John F. Kennedy International Airport two days later and made their way to a nearby airport hotel to sleep.

    That evening, Streever was told by the hotel front desk that a federal agent from the Department of Homeland Security had come to see him and had left a business card. His wife had not told the agents which hotel he would be staying at, raising questions about how Streever had been tracked to that location.

    "Like many Americans, I was deeply upset after the shootings in Minnesota and I felt compelled to do something," Streever said in a statement. "Writing an email to the head of ICE seemed like the least I could do to express my sense of outrage. I never dreamed it would lead to a knock on my door by federal officers or descending on my hotel in the dark of night."

    The lawsuit names three federal agents who tried to contact Streever as defendants along with Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin and ICE officials.

    The suit argues the federal agents' actions have caused Streever to self-censor his views, and alleges they violated a First Amendment bar on the government threatening people over protected speech.

    The lawsuit asks for the court to find that Streever's email was protected by the First Amendment, and to bar defendants "from taking any further actions, formal or informal, to coerce, threaten, retaliate against, or intimate repercussions directly or indirectly to Plaintiff Streever for his protected speech and petitioning activity."

    The suit also asks the court to declare the warning notices federal agents are issuing people are "sufficient" to chill free expression protected by the First Amendment.

    "ICE's issuance of formal "WARNING NOTICE" documents to critics who engage in protected speech—and its decision to have federal agents deliver those warnings in person—can have only one purpose: to systemically chill ICE's critics and coerce them into silence," the suit reads.

    DHS initially responded with the same statement that it provided last week when NPR first asked about Streever's case. "ICE investigates all credible threats towards its employees and officers, including threats to the ICE Director. As a matter of policy, we do not comment on any ongoing investigations."

    Later on Monday DHS sent an additional statement. "Any allegation DHS and its components are attempting to 'squash' free speech is categorically FALSE," it reads.

    "Our law enforcement officers are on the frontlines arresting terrorists, gang members, murderers, child sex abusers, and rapists. They are experiencing coordinated campaigns of violence against them and facing a 1,300% increase in assaults against them, a 3,300% increase in vehicular attacks, and an 8,000% increase in death threats."

    NPR has not verified the statistics shared by DHS.

    "Anyone who assaults or threatens our law enforcement officers will face the consequences," the statement concludes.

    Adam Steinbaugh, senior attorney at FIRE, said in a statement the government's delayed response to Streever's January email undermines its investigation.

    "If someone is really threatening a government official, you don't wait five months to act on it," Steinbaugh said in the statement. "The fact that authorities didn't respond immediately shows that David presented no threat. This pursuit is designed to intimidate lawful speech, pure and simple."

    Poll worker given the same warning notice

    The lawsuit mentions that the same day HSI agents visited Streever's home on June 23, they also confronted Paigelynne Gonyea, a Syracuse resident who was working at a polling place for the New York primary election that day, about an Instagram post.

    While Gonyea was at Syracuse's Central Library working the polls, an HSI agent left her a voicemail that said the agents had just visited her former apartment and were calling "in reference to a post that we believe you made on Instagram where you doxxed an ICE agent back in January."

    Doxxing typically refers to releasing sensitive information about a person online.

    Gonyea called the agent back. She said the agents had wanted her to come outside the polling place to speak with them but she told NPR she did not trust them, and had told them to come talk to her inside the polling place when there was a lull in voters.

    Local election officials later said the federal agents should not have gone inside, given that police are not supposed to enter polling places unless there is an emergency and a recently enacted New York law bars federal immigration officers from voting sites.

    Video captured by fellow poll workers shows two agents with badges speaking with Gonyea inside the library and delivering a warning notice that said her Instagram account may have violated the law. Gonyea said the agents did not tell her which of her posts had prompted their visit but they had confirmed it was a post about Jonathan Ross, the ICE officer who fatally shot Renee Macklin Good in Minneapolis.

    Gonyea denied to NPR and other news outlets that she had ever doxxed Ross and had said she thought the agents were referring to a post she made that identified Ross by name after the Minnesota Star Tribune had reported it, and called for Ross to be indicted. That post is still visible on her Instagram account.

    But after NPR and other media outlets wrote about the encounter, DHS released a statement that said Gonyea "committed a federal crime by posting the address of an ICE law enforcement officer online." The statement continued, "Doxxing federal law enforcement officers is a federal crime that puts their lives and their families in serious danger…If you doxx our officers, we will investigate you, and you will be brought to justice."

    DHS did not respond to requests from NPR to provide evidence that Gonyea had doxxed Ross. But the department did share with the Associated Press a redacted screenshot taken from a cell phone of a different Instagram post that looks like it was posted from Gonyea's account.

    The post that was shown to AP is a photo of Ross with text that reads, "The killer's name is Jonathan Ross of" and the rest is redacted, presumably by DHS. The post does not currently appear on Gonyea's Instagram account. The screenshot shows it was taken six hours after the post went up but does not show a date.

    Gonyea told NPR she had the opportunity to review the screenshot of the post but she did not believe she had posted it.

    "Based on everything I know, I do not believe that I made that post, and I have no independent recollection of ever creating or publishing it," she told NPR in a text message.

    "There is additional context that I believe is important, and I look forward to addressing those matters through the appropriate process rather than in the press," she wrote.

    "What has not changed is my concern about the broader constitutional issues raised by my experience, including free speech, due process and government accountability."

    Steinbaugh from FIRE told NPR last week that a social media post that shares a person's address alone is not a criminal offense.

    "What the law criminalizes is publishing an address or sharing an address with the intent to convey a threat," Steinbaugh said. "So if you post an address and say, 'Hey, gang, at 5:00 tonight, we're going to all meet up here with our pitchforks and torches,' that puts you more in the ballpark of a threat."

    He said some social media posts that publicized Ross's address were in the context of a broader public debate about whether federal immigration officers can wear masks and refuse to identify themselves "and essentially [act] almost as a secret police." He said for that reason, some posts that shared information about Ross were a form of protest.

    "People might think that that is speech that people should not engage in, but it's still protected and it can't be criminalized," Steinbaugh said.

    Gonyea and Streever are the first two people who have made public that they received warning notices from Homeland Security agents about their online communications.
    Copyright 2026 NPR

  • Applications now open for Glendale residents
    A man walking with three school-aged girls past a multi-story tan apartment building. The numbers "1051" are displayed on the front over a doorway in white. Patches of green grass and small shrubs are on either side of the building.
    An apartment building on Justin Avenue in Glendale.

    Topline:

    Glendale residents dealing with a job loss, major medical expenses or similar financial difficulties may be able to receive temporary support.

    Why it matters: The goal of the new Glendale Rental Assistance and Stabilization Program, also known as GRASP, is to keep renters in their homes as a form of homelessness prevention, according to the city.

    Why now: The initial applications opened Monday and will close in two weeks, on July 20. You can find the link and learn more here.

    The details: Households hoping to participate in the program must be experiencing some kind of hardship, including an eviction for nonpayment of rent, utility shutoffs, loss of housing and an essential, unavoidable expense. People currently experiencing homelessness do not qualify. If approved, households could get emergency rental assistance, short-term payments, help preventing utility shutoffs or restoring services and one-time financial support to help people stay housed or get a stable spot in Glendale.

    What's next: Those eligible for temporary assistance will be sorted into waiting lists that are prioritized based on the most urgent needs, according to the city.

    Go deeper: In Orange County, six-figure salaries now qualify as 'low income'

  • Judge rules AG Bonta overstepped his authority
    A group of people hold signs standing next to a street intersection. The signs read "Hand off local revenue," "Don't defund fire!" "Don't slash city budget," and more.
    Protesters gather outside the Sheraton Grand Sacramento Hotel in Sacramento on May 21, 2026, to oppose regulations that would end black jack-style games at cardrooms across the state.

    Topline:

    California’s tribal casinos found an ally in Attorney General Rob Bonta who sought to ban blackjack at private cardrooms, but a judge ruled Bonta overstepped his authority.

    Why now: San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Darwin ruled that Bonta’s Bureau of Gambling Control didn’t have the legal authority to issue statewide rules severely restricting the games at cardrooms.

    Why it matters: The ruling, which followed Darwin’s temporary order in May, is the latest defeat for the state’s casino-owning Native American tribes. They have spent years and tens of millions of dollars unsuccessfully appealing to courts, voters, the Legislature and California regulators to put their only in-state competitors out of the blackjack business.

    Read on... for more on the ruling.

    California’s dozens of private gambling halls can continue offering blackjack and other table games after a San Francisco judge ruled last week that Attorney General Rob Bonta overstepped when he tried to ban them.

    San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Darwin ruled that Bonta’s Bureau of Gambling Control didn’t have the legal authority to issue statewide rules severely restricting the games at cardrooms.

    The ruling, which followed Darwin’s temporary order in May, is the latest defeat for the state’s casino-owning Native American tribes. They have spent years and tens of millions of dollars unsuccessfully appealing to courts, voters, the Legislature and California regulators to put their only in-state competitors out of the blackjack business.

    The tribes contend cardrooms have unscrupulously violated state laws prohibiting anyone but tribal casinos from offering “house-banked,” Las Vegas-style table games including blackjack, the most lucrative.

    Cardroom operators say the ruling once again proves their business model is legal. It also ensures taxes that cities receive from blackjack revenues will continue to support local government services and cardroom jobs.

    “For more than a year, we have said this case is about far more than gaming — it is about whether the attorney general and his regulators can bypass the Legislature and unilaterally rewrite decades of established law,” Kyle Kirkland, a Fresno cardroom owner and president of the California Gaming Association, said in a statement. “The court delivered a clear answer: they cannot.”

    James May, a spokesperson for California Nations Indian Gaming Association, didn’t return an interview request.

    Bonta’s office said in an email that officials were disappointed in the ruling and are reviewing their options.

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