The Brief

The number of people in Los Angeles County who participated in the first year of a program aimed at providing court-led treatment plans for people who live with serious mental illness remains far below initial state projections, according to data from county mental health authorities.

Known as CARE Court, the new program was promised as an innovative approach to bringing thousands of Californians living with untreated serious mental illness under the care of mental health professionals.

But numbers from the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health show the county received about 16% of the petitions it was projected to get during the first six months of the program. From December of last year through mid-November, 308 petitions were filed in L.A. Superior Court, authorities said.

The petition numbers from Orange and Riverside counties are similarly low compared to estimates of how many people in those areas are potentially eligible for CARE Court.

“It’s been very frustrating to watch the slow pace of petitions by anyone other than family members,” Lisa Dailey, executive director of the Treatment Advocacy Center, a group that advocates for policies that benefit people living with serious mental illness, told LAist. Still, Dailey has hope for the program and thinks it deserves more effort.

Some critics see the paltry engagement as indicative of a failed policy. But supporters say the program needs more time and effort from county behavioral health departments.

Gov. Gavin Newsom, who championed the new approach, said he’s proud to see “early achievements,” including some 1,400 people throughout the state who were connected to CARE Courts or county services directly.

In March 2022, Governor Newsom spoke with local mental health service providers and officials about CARE Court. The discussion was held at a facility in South L.A. that’s a temporary home to about 30 people who are getting treatment for mental health or substance use struggles.

(

Robert Garrova / LAist

)

State officials estimated before the program’s launch that it could help between 7,000 -12,000 Californians a year.

Slow progress 

CARE Court allows family members, behavioral health workers, first responders and others to ask a court — by way of a petition — to step in with a voluntary care plan for someone living with serious mental illness, like schizophrenia. If the plan fails, the person could be hospitalized or referred to a conservatorship.

Between Dec. 1, 2023 and Nov. 20, there were 308 petitions filed in Los Angeles County, far below the roughly 1,900 state officials projected for the first six months of the program. Of those, 28 participants signed on to agreements and four moved forward to the stage in which they were expected to receive a CARE Plan, ordered by the Superior Court.

Some experts say that progress has been slow, particularly in a county where thousands of people living with serious mental illness sleep on the streets every night.

The 2024 Point-In-Time count found that 24% of unhoused people over the age of 18 self-reported that they live with a serious mental illness, according to the Los Angeles Homelessness Services Authority, which conducts the annual count.

Martin Jones, a program manager with the L.A. County Department of Mental Health, said there are about 70 county staffers working on CARE Court. He said working with human beings — gaining their trust and establishing a rapport — takes time and that just physically getting someone to court can take multiple staffers.

“I think that we’ve seen a lot of success from individuals who we’ve been told if CARE had not intervened this person would have died on the streets,” Jones said. “How do you really calculate the value of those kinds of stories? And I believe that it’s incalculable.”

Jones said he expected the first wave of L.A. County CARE Court graduations to happen early next year.

‘A very narrow niche’

For Alex V. Barnard, author of the book Conservatorship: Inside California’s System of Coercion and Care for Mental Illness, the lackluster CARE Court numbers were all too predictable.

“It was clear from the beginning that this was a program that would be very hard to access, and would serve a very narrow niche,” Barnard wrote in an email to LAist.

Eligibility criteria for CARE Court state that a participant must be diagnosed with a psychotic spectrum disorder, like schizophrenia. Bipolar disorder is not included. The criteria also say that the participant can’t be in ongoing treatment.

Barnard said he predicts that CARE Court will remain a small piece of the mental health treatment landscape, overshadowed by what was known as Senate Bill 43, a new state law that expands the criteria for involuntary treatment.

The measure, signed by Newsom in October 2023, changed state law to allow people living with a serious mental illness or severe substance use disorder who are unable to provide for their personal safety or medical care to be deemed “gravely disabled” and held against their will.

Barnard also questions whether the multi-million dollar investment in CARE Court might have been better spent on beds and services, which the county is severely lacking.

“It's really not clear why you need a court to get mental health departments to provide mental health care to individuals with mental health challenges, though, versus fixing issues around financing and prioritization within that system,” he said.

‘A policy failure’ 

Eve Garrow, senior policy analyst with the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, said funding directed towards CARE Court should instead be going to community-based care. The low participation numbers are evidence to her that the effort is not working.

“I think by any measure, I would say the CARE Act to date is a policy failure,” Garrow said. “It’s used precious resources — public funds — to fund a court system that is not even being used.”

In 2022, 40 groups — including JusticeLA, Disability Rights California and ACLU California Action — signed a letter saying the program would strip “people with mental health disabilities of their right to make their own decisions about their lives.”

Garrow said she believed CARE Court was the wrong response to a very real problem: “Which is people with serious mental health disabilities -- many of whom are unhoused -- living without access to the care and services they need,” she said.

In her experience, Garrow said, most people who are offered quality mental health care will accept it voluntarily.

More time 

Still, other mental health policy watchers are sticking by CARE Court, even if its initial expansion has been sluggish.

Dr. Susan Partovi, a family physician who does street outreach with the L.A. Centers for Alcohol and Drug Abuse, said the low participation may be partly because the Department of Mental Health needs to make more people aware of CARE Court and who it might help.

“I think they really need to be advertising this on a regular basis, because it’s hard to remember,” Partovi said, adding that the underwhelming numbers were a reminder for her that she could be filing more petitions.

According to the L.A. County Department of Mental Health, just 10 petitions came from provider networks.

Dailey, with the Treatment Advocacy Center, said county efforts have been partly to blame for what she sees as “unfortunate” numbers in the program’s first year. Jones, with the Department of Mental Health, said the county was now making a push to train more first responders on how to file petitions and when they might be appropriate. Only 22 of L.A. County’s 308 petitions were filed by the county Department of Mental Health.

The overwhelming majority came from family members.

“If there was no need for it, you wouldn’t see this initial rush from family members to try to get people into care,” Dailey said.

The Southern California Muslim community during the early to mid-20th century became more diverse, but the visibility of Muslims in SoCal didn’t significantly increase until the creation of new Islamic institutions and hubs like the Islamic Society of Orange County.

Community pillars like the Islamic Society of Orange County (ISOC), located in Garden Grove, allow Muslims in Southern Calfironia to connect with their faith and explore their religious identities in a rapidly changing society.

With the holy month of Ramadan underway, the Islamic Society of Orange County is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year.

Muzammil Siddiqi, director and Islamic scholar for ISOC, who has served the community since 1981, recently joined LAist’s daily news program AirTalk with Larry Mantle, along with Deana Helmy, chair of the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California, to talk about the community center’s impact on the region over the past five decades.

How ISOC got its start

Muslims began arriving in Southern California as early as the 20th century, with roots primarily from South Asian Punjabi descent and the Middle East.

“It was a small number,” said Sidiqqi. “They started gathering at religious services and learning about the Quran within their families.”

As numbers continued to increase, particularly after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Muslims in Southern California formed the basis of the ISOC, and in 1976, it became the first mosque in Orange County.

The Islamic Society of Orange county serves thousands of Muslims with prayer, educational, and counseling services, including a youth group.

(

Samanta Helou Hernandez

/

LAist

)

“At the time, when the community bought this place, they thought it was too big for them,” said Sidiqqi, adding, “Soon a large number of people started coming, and we had to buy neighboring properties.”

Today, the SoCal muslim community is diverse, as people from the Middle East, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Southeast Asia, Latin America and descendants from Europe attend ISOC and share it as a community space.

“The Mother Mosque”

The Islamic Society of Orange County has grown to become the largest Muslim community center in Southern California, serving more than 10,000 followers throughout the area.

“That’s why we call it the mother mosque,” Sidiqqi said.

The mosque is more than just a place for worship for Muslims in SoCal; it's a community center.

“I actually attended the elementary school at ISOC called Orange Crescent School,” Helmy said.

Orange Crescent School is located within the Islamic Society of Orange County Masjid premises in Garden Grove. It currently offers full-time schooling from preschool to 8th grade, and intends to expand its reach and become the first Islamic High School in Orange County.

Children's backpacks hang outside of a classroom at the Orange Crescent School located on the grounds of the Garden Grove mosque.

(

Samanta Helou Hernandez

/

LAist

)

“All subjects that are taught in other schools are taught here. Aside from that, they learn the Arabic language and Islamic studies,” Sidiqqi said. “We emphasize very much the moral character of our students, according to Islamic traditions.”

AirTalk listeners also weighed in and shared the role ISOC plays in their lives.

Adis in the city of Orange told Larry, “My dad was the first president of the youth group organized in the masjid, and my mom was very involved in organizing as well,” adding, “that was the first place where they met, and it was history from there.”

“I just go to hang out with my daughter sometimes over the weekend,” said LAist reporter Yusra Farzan, adding, “They have cool Friday night programs for kids.”

Equality, leadership, and interfaith outreach

In addition to making inroads with the Muslim society-at-large, ISOC has also played a crucial role in acknowledging the need for women's representation in its organization.

“Leadership at the masjid has always elevated and highlighted women,” said Helmy, adding that ISOC has “really ensured that women have the space and place to belong, to be able to speak up and to be encouraged to take on leadership roles.”

ISOC offers a variety of services and programs that aim to educate people about Islam and debunk misconceptions and myths about the faith. Sidiqqi recalled being in the nation’s capital the day of the 9/11 attacks, telling Mantle that he was actually invited by President George W. Bush to participate in the interfaith service that was held at the Washington National Cathedral.

“This has been our work at the ISOC. Bringing understanding, reconciliation, peace, and harmony,” he said. “These have been the teachings of Islam, and so we invite people to come learn about the faith.”

You can listen to the full AirTalk SoCal History segment here.

President Donald Trump called the Supreme Court's decision against his sweeping use of tariffs "deeply disappointing" and slammed the members of the court who ruled against him.

Trump called the justices who opposed his tariffs "fools" and "lapdogs," charging that they were acting because of liberal partisanship, though three of those ruling against him were appointed by Republican presidents and two were Trump appointees.

"I think it is deeply disappointing, and I'm ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what's right for our country," he said.

The court — in a 6 to 3 decision —found that a law known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs.

The ruling was the president's most significant defeat at the Supreme Court since he returned to office, and threatens to upend one of Trump's favorite and most powerful tools of his economic and foreign policy agenda.

The decision injects even more uncertainty into the future of tariffs, but Trump made clear that he has no plans on giving up on his agenda.

Calling it his "favorite word in the dictionary," Trump has repeatedly credited his use of tariffs with helping him stop wars and pressure world leaders to bend to U.S. interests.

He boasted about the economic benefits. A recent Congressional Budget Office report found that tariffs were expected to help reduce the deficits by about $3 trillion over a decade. But that same report found that U.S. consumers - not foreign companies - were paying the vast majority of that money.

But while talking with reporters Friday, Trump sought to put a positive spin on the court decision. He said that it would provide certainty for the U.S. economy and that he plans to seek alternatives, which he laid out specifically.

"Their decision's incorrect. But it doesn't matter, because we have very powerful alternatives that have been approved by this decision," he said.

Trump cited a dissent written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh who listed laws that the administration could pursue, including "the Trade Act of 1974 sections 122, 201, 301, and the Tariff Act of 1930 section 338."

He acknowledged that those processes may be more cumbersome, but had stronger legal standing. He also cited Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, that allows the president to impose tariffs to address trade deficits. But those tariffs are limited to 15%, and only for 150 days, after which Congress would have to approve them.

"While I am sure that they did not mean to do so, the Supreme Court's decision today made the President's ability to both regulate trade and impose tariffs more powerful and more crystal clear, rather than less. I don't think they meant that. I'm sure they didn't," Trump said.

And he said he would sign an executive order today to continue certain tariffs under alternative authorities, including adding a "10% global tariff."

That rule would also eventually need approval from Congress, after 150 days, which could be difficult with an election approaching.

Republicans are facing pressure from constituents about high costs and the business community that is afraid to invest with all the economic uncertainty.

A recent NPR/Marist poll finds that a majority of Americans — 56% — feel tariffs or fees on imported products from other countries hurts the U.S. economy.

The former Senate majority leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell praised the Supreme Court's decision.

"Congress' role in trade policy, as I have warned repeatedly, is not an inconvenience to avoid," the Kentucky Republican said. "If the executive would like to enact trade policies that impact American producers and consumers, its path forward is crystal clear: convince their representatives under Article 1" of the Constitution."

But Trump, who has expressed frustration with gridlock in Congress, expressed confidence that he would continue to be able to employ tariffs unilaterally.

"Foreign countries that have been ripping us off for years are ecstatic," Trump said. They are so happy and they're dancing in the streets. But they won't be dancing for long. That I can assure you."
Copyright 2026 NPR

A judge has ruled that the city of Los Angeles cannot move forward with a program that would allow local officials to remove and dismantle more recreational vehicles the city deems a nuisance.

The city planned to roll out a new state law that gives L.A. County authority to dispose of abandoned or inoperable RVs worth up to $4,000. The previous threshold was $500.

Some city officials who support the new law say L.A. must have the tools to get unsafe and unsanitary RVs off the streets for good.

But opponents argued the law does not apply to the city of L.A. — only the county — and that the city’s “illegal” actions would harm vulnerable Angelenos who live in RVs, according to court documents.

In a new ruling issued Thursday, Superior Court Judge Curtis A. Kin agreed with the opponents. The judge said the new law “provides no such authority to the City of Los Angeles.”

The backstory

The ruling stems from a legal challenge by a coalition of housed and unhoused residents in West L.A. around the city’s implementation of Assembly Bill 630, which became law Jan. 1.

The L.A. City Council voted in December to approve a motion instructing various city departments to “immediately implement” the law.

The CD11 Coalition for Human Rights then asked a judge to intervene, claiming L.A. is “recklessly charging ahead” with a program it’s not authorized to execute, according to court documents.

What the officials say

Councilmember Traci Park, who introduced the council motion in October, told LAist previously that nuisance RVs create health and safety issues that put entire neighborhoods at risk. Park said residents want solutions, not frivolous lawsuits.

Shayla Myers, an attorney with Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, told LAist after the ruling Thursday that the lawsuits aren’t frivolous when the petitioners keep winning.

“It is incredibly unclear why the city did not simply accept the plain language of AB 630 and instead forced our client to go to court, wasting court resources, city resources at a time when the city doesn't have resources to spare,” Myers said.

City Attorney Hydee Feldstein-Soto’s office did not respond to LAist’s requests for comment on the city’s implementation of AB 630.

What’s next

L.A. Mayor Karen Bass proposed AB 630 in partnership with Assemblymember Mark González, who introduced the California assembly bill. González said in a statement to LAist last month that his office is “working with our partners to clarify the law to ensure the City can fully implement AB 630."

González has introduced another bill, AB 647, that would expand the language of the law to include “any public agency” within L.A. County.

Go deeper: West LA coalition challenges city's rollout of new RV law