The Brief

A federal court on Tuesday issued a preliminary injunction forbidding the Border Patrol from conducting warrantless immigration stops throughout a wide swath of California.

The ruling came in response to an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit filed after the El Centro Border Patrol traveled to Kern County to conduct a three-day sweep in January, detaining day laborers, farm workers and others in a Home Depot parking lot, outside a convenience store and along a highway between orchards.

The ruling prohibits Border Patrol agents from taking similar actions, restricting them from stopping people unless they have a reasonable suspicion that the person is in violation of U.S. immigration law. It also bars agents from carrying out warrantless arrests unless they have probable cause that the person is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained.

“You just can’t walk up to people with brown skin and say, ‘Give me your papers,’” U.S. District Court Judge Jennifer L. Thurston said during a Monday hearing in Fresno that featured moments of heated exchange between government attorneys and the judge.

The ACLU filed suit on behalf of United Farm Workers, arguing that the stops violated the Fourth Amendment. The judge has not decided on the totality of the case, but on Tuesday granted the ACLU’s motion to stop the Border Patrol from conducting similar operations while the case moved through the courts.

“I think that it’s pretty clear that half of a century of really established law is being upheld. It's unfortunate that this is a cause for celebration. It’s not legal to snatch people off the street for looking like farm workers or day laborers,” said Elizabeth Strater, vice president of United Farm Workers.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta agreed. “That’s existing law, and the judge’s order reflects existing law.”

"You can't just indiscriminately stop people and search them without any appropriate reasonable suspicion or probable cause or without a warrant," Bonta said at a news conference in San Diego on Monday about conditions in ICE detention. "So, it sounds like the judge had seen enough and wanted to issue an order. "

The injunction is in effect in the jurisdiction of California’s Eastern District, which spans the Central Valley from Redding to Bakersfield.

After the January sweep, the man who led it, Chief Patrol Agent Gregory Bovino, said his agents specifically targeted people with criminal and immigration histories. However, a CalMatters investigation revealed that the Border Patrol had no criminal or immigration history on 77 of the 78 people it arrested.

The court also ordered the Border Patrol to document every stop and provide reports within 60 days. During oral arguments on Monday, the government attorney said doing so would be burdensome to Border Patrol agents. Judge Thurston rebuked the government, saying: “They have to make a report for every arrest, not sure what the burden is.”

According to sworn declarations filed in court by those detained, Border Patrol agents slashed tires, yanked people out of trucks, threw people to the ground, and called farmworkers “Mexican bitches.”

Border Patrol attorneys characterized those examples as actions of individual agents, and not reflective of a policy from the agency.

Thurston disagreed. “The evidence is that this was wide scale” and not limited to individual agents, she said.

Border Patrol agents receive new training

Border Patrol attorneys didn’t offer evidence of their own to dispute the evidence presented by the ACLU, including stopping people based on their race and warrantless arrests. They tried to persuade Thurston that the order would not be necessary because the agency is already taking steps to retrain its officers. In a previous court filing, government attorneys said Border Patrol had issued guidance to retrain the El Center sector’s 900 agents on the Fourth Amendment in order to prevent warrantless arrests.

At Monday’s hearing, Thurston questioned why guidance would even be necessary since agents are trained on the Fourth Amendment in the academy.

Government attorneys told the judge 270 agents have received the training. Thurston asked for details on how the training was being carried out. “Shift by shift?” she said. But government attorneys said they did not know.

The packed courtroom was contentious at times. U.S. Department of Justice attorney Olga Y. Kuchins argued that the Border Patrol’s sweep in Kern County, known as “Operation Return to Sender” wasn’t standard policy. “This two-day operation does not a policy make,” she said.

Thurston asked how many days were needed for an operation to be taken as policy, and on what authority the government was relying on to establish this operation could not be interpreted as part of Border Patrol policy.

“Do you know of that authority?” Thurston said.

“I don’t know of that authority,” Kuchins said.

The injunction also compels the El Centro Sector to provide proof within 90 days, and every 30 days thereafter, that agents involved in these operations have been trained on these rules.

“This ruling is a powerful recognition that what happened in Kern County and surrounding area in January was illegal,” said Bree Bernwanger, ACLU senior staff attorney.

She called it a “powerful reminder that law enforcement agents – including immigration – cannot stop you, detain you because of the color of your skin.”

Another immigration sweep

Even after government attorneys pledged to retrain agents on the Constitution, El Centro sector traveled more than 200 miles north to Pomona last week and rounded up day laborers outside a Home Depot, an action reminiscent of the Kern County raid.

Witnesses say federal agents arrived in unmarked vehicles around 8:30 a.m. Tuesday, and quickly surrounded the Home Depot parking lot on South Towne Avenue.

“When they saw that a critical mass was gathered, they executed the raid,” said Alexis Teodoro, a Worker Rights Director with the Pomona Economic Opportunity Center.

According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, agents arrested 10 and placed them into removal proceedings. No other agencies were involved, said Michael Scappechio, a spokesman for U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Advocates are adamant that more than 20 people were initially taken into custody, based on piecing together the accounts of different witnesses about what happened.

Federal officials defended their actions, saying agents were initially targeting a single individual with an active arrest warrant. During the operation, nine other people were also taken into custody. Some of those detained had prior charges, including child abuse, assault with a deadly weapon, immigration violations, and DUI, said Hilton Beckham, the assistant commissioner for CBP’s office of public affairs.

Jesus Domingo Ross, 38, was standing on a street corner looking for work near the Home Depot in Pomona last week when, he said, agents appeared from all sides, grabbed him and threw him to the ground.

“I panicked,” he said, describing the moment he realized he was in custody of U.S. immigration authorities. “Just with everything you’re seeing on the news right now, I really panicked because we didn’t know what was going to happen.”

He spoke to CalMatters on Saturday night during visiting hours at the Imperial Regional Detention Facility in Calexico, where he is now being held.

“I’m trying to keep my confidence in God to carry me through this,” he said quietly.

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

In a historic vote, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's vaccine advisers recommended narrowing the agency's hepatitis B immunization guidance for newborns.

The result, if approved by the CDC's acting director, will be a rollback of a universal recommendation to start hepatitis B immunization at birth, a standard practice in the U.S. for more than 30 years that has been credited with dramatically lowering liver diseases caused by the virus.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, voted 8-3 to recommend hepatitis B at birth only for infants born to women who test positive for the virus that attacks the liver. Women whose hepatitis B status is negative or unknown should talk with their doctors about vaccination, the recommendation says.

The changes were made over the strong objections of liaisons from the medical community, who say the decades-long universal birth dose policy has dramatically reduced cases of hepatitis B in U.S. children.

"Our question is why? Why is there pressure today to change something that has been working, due to safety concerns that may be more theoretical than real?" asked Dr. Grant Paulsen during Thursday's meeting. He was representing the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society.

There was a second vote regarding the number of shots babies get. Full immunization of infants involves three shots: usually one given at birth, a second shot one to three months later and a third at six to 15 months of age.

The panel voted 6-4, with one member abstaining, to recommend testing children's antibody levels after each hepatitis B shot to determine whether additional shots are needed. The result may be that some children get one or two shots instead of the standard three shots.

Dr. Adam Langer, a CDC official in charge of the agency's center that includes hepatitis prevention, said during the panel's discussion that clinical studies of approved hepatitis B vaccines tested a three-shot regimen. Stopping at one or two shots based on antibody testing would be making an assumption about efficacy that isn't supported by existing data, he said.

The split vote on removing the recommendation for the universal vaccine reflects disagreement among the members. Several members who served on a subgroup that has been reviewing the topic led the votes in favor of the change.

The committee voting this week was hand selected by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has long questioned many vaccines. Several of the voting members themselves have a history of questioning the safety of long-used vaccines.

Retsef Levi, a voting member and professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management, heralded the move as "a fundamental change in the approach to this vaccine," which would encourage parents to "carefully think about whether they want to take the risk of giving another vaccine to their child." Levi said parents may want to delay the vaccine for years. "That's going to be up to them and their physicians," he said.

A handful of members raised concerns over the lack of evidence supporting the change and concerns it will put children at risk.

"We know vaccines are safe," said Dr. Cody Meissner, a professor of pediatrics at Dartmouth's Geisel School of Medicine and the only current member who has served on the committee in previous years. "The hepatitis B vaccine recommendation is very well established. We know it is safe, and we know it is very effective, and to make the changes that are being proposed, we will see more children and adolescents and adults infected with hepatitis B."

Meissner added that he saw clear evidence of the benefits of the universal hepatitis B birth dose, but not the harms. When he registered his "no" vote, he stated, "Do no harm is a moral imperative. We are doing harm by changing this wording."

The previous recommendation to vaccinate all healthy newborns against hepatitis B was designed to make sure no at-risk infant falls through the cracks. Hepatitis B can be transmitted from mothers to infants during childbirth, but can also be spread through contact with an infected person's body fluids including saliva and blood.

Immunization in infancy confers lifelong protection against the hepatitis B virus, which can cause serious, potentially fatal health problems including liver cancer and cirrhosis. It is the cornerstone of a decades-long strategy to eliminate hepatitis B in the U.S.
Copyright 2025 NPR

A few weeks ago, Taelyr Vecchione vented her growing frustration with traffic in San Diego.

"Do you remember when traffic started at, like, 5?" she said in this video posted on TikTok. Vecchione filmed herself sitting in her car, lamenting how things in her Southern California hometown have changed.

"Now," she says, "there is always traffic. Always!"

In fact, there is data to back her up on this. San Diego has seen a significant jump in traffic delays, researchers say, as congestion across the U.S. climbed to record levels in 2024.

If it seems like traffic is getting worse where you live, that's because it probably is. After dropping during the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers say, congestion has equaled — and, in many places, surpassed — pre-pandemic levels. And those delays are spreading to more times of day and more days of the week.

"We are back. But the delay kind of has a different feel to it than it did before," said David Schrank, a senior research scientist at the Texas A&M Transportation Institute, which has tracked congestion since the 1980s in its annual Urban Mobility Report.

For decades, Schrank says, those patterns barely budged. Then came 2020, when congestion plunged during the pandemic lockdown. Now it's back at record levels, he says, with the average American spending 63 hours per year stuck in traffic.

There are some other notable differences from past years too. The rush-hour peaks are still the worst times to drive, Schrank says, but there's more congestion at other times of day as well.

"It's spread out over more of the day, and thus it's not just a commuter issue," Schrank said in an NPR interview. "Everyone is experiencing more of that delay."

Those aren't the only changes researchers are seeing in the data. Schrank says there's more delay on weekends. Traffic on Mondays tends to be noticeably lighter than on the other weekdays, he said, while Thursday has nearly caught up with Friday as the heaviest traffic day of the week.

"There's more variability day to day than there was pre-pandemic. The day of the week matters, and the time of the day matters," Schrank said.

Trucks are causing more congestion as well, according to the Texas A&M report. While some truck traffic shifted toward off-peak hours during 2020 and 2021, the most recent data shows that truck-related delays during rush hour are climbing back toward their pre-pandemic level.

Schrank and his colleagues ranked every metropolitan area in the U.S. by hours of traffic delay. San Diego saw the largest percentage jump in hours of delay per commuter since 2019, at more than 37%. Miami, Phoenix and the San Francisco Bay Area saw significant jumps too.

But no city caught up to Greater Los Angeles, where the average commuter lost 137 hours to delays last year, according to the Texas A&M report.

Traffic on Interstate 210 during the morning commute in Pasadena, Calif., this month. Researchers say the average driver in Los Angeles lost 137 hours to traffic delays in 2024, the most of any U.S. city.

(

Mario Tama

/

Getty Images

)

That came as no great surprise to Michael Manville, a professor of urban planning at the University of California, Los Angeles. He warns against reading too much into the individual city rankings but says the overall findings make sense.

"Congestion moves largely in sync with broader patterns in regional economies. And so if you have the economy doing well, congestion tends to be worse. If you have a recession, it tends to be a little bit better," Manville said.

Researchers at Texas A&M also identified a few regions where congestion is down compared with before the pandemic — most notably, Washington, D.C. That could be linked to the persistence of remote work in the federal government in 2024. And it might also have something to do with regional efforts to fight congestion, including a tolling strategy known as dynamic pricing.

"If you're going to contribute to the excessive congestion during the peak and the evening rush hours perhaps, you're going to be paying more for the tolls," said Robert Puentes, a vice president and transportation expert at the Brookings Institution.

Puentes lives in Northern Virginia, which has adopted an extensive system of tolls on major highways that charge different prices at different times. And he says that this seems to help reduce congestion.

"It's something that really could be applicable in other metropolitan areas. We see places in Texas and California, in other places, that are using it. I think it has a real future in this country," Puentes said.

Another ambitious effort to fight congestion is happening in New York City, where car drivers now pay as much as $9 to enter Lower Manhattan.

That congestion pricing plan has already cut traffic in the toll zone since its launch in January. But it's still too early to say how much it's changing commuting patterns across the region.
Copyright 2025 NPR

It's one of the most anticipated events ahead of the 2026 World Cup.

On Friday, FIFA will conduct the draw for the top men's soccer tournament, taking place across the U.S., Canada and Mexico. The draw — at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C. — will determine which opponents all 48 teams participating in the World Cup will eventually face in the initial group stage.

The draw will be attended by the three leaders of the countries hosting the event, including President Trump, in an event that has become quite the spectacle over the years.

Here's what to know about the draw for the World Cup, with the ceremony set to kick off at 9 a.m. PT.

What is the draw for?

Next year's tournament is the biggest ever, with 48 teams set to be split among 12 groups of four.

These groups make up the first stage of the tournament, which determines which teams advance to the knockout rounds. The top two sides of each group automatically qualify, along with the eight best third-place teams.

Not all teams that will take part in the 2026 World Cup are known, though. So far, 42 countries have qualified, with the remaining six — including Italy — set to compete in playoffs next March to determine the final list of participants.

How will the teams be drawn?

Ahead of the draw, all teams have been placed in four pots, primarily based on their most recent FIFA rankings.

Pot 1 will include top-ranked teams such as Spain and Brazil, along with the three hosts. Pot 4 will include the lowest-ranked teams, including World Cup debutants Cape Verde, Curaçao and Jordan, as well as placeholders for the six teams that have yet to qualify.

Teams will be drawn randomly from each pot — but there are a few rules.

There can be only up to two European teams per group and only one team per group from each of the remaining five continental confederations under FIFA. That means, for example, that an African team such as Tunisia cannot be drawn into the same group as Ghana, even if they are in two separate pots.

In addition, in a quirk for this year's tournament, FIFA has determined that the top two-ranked teams — Spain and Argentina — will be placed in groups that would end up on opposite sides of the tournament bracket should they each win their respective groups. That ensures these two early favorites would not meet until the final.

The same rule will apply to France and England, the third- and fourth-best ranked teams according to FIFA.

When will we know where teams will play?

In another quirk, teams will not know at Friday's draw where or when they will play. The locations and kickoff times for each team across all 16 host cities will be determined on Saturday, at a separate event.

FIFA has said it wants to try to take travel times for teams in mind, while also ensuring that teams are drawn into kickoff times that are more favorable for spectators in their respective countries. For example, evening start times would likely be better for Asian sides, ensuring games are taking place when it's roughly the following day for spectators back home.

Spain is considered one of the early favorites to win the 2026 World Cup. Pictured here is star player Lamine Yamal, celebrating a goal against France in the semifinal of the UEFA Euro 2024 tournament, which Spain eventually won.

(

Justin Setterfield

/

Getty Images

)

Does this all matter?

The draw helps determine how easy — or difficult — the path to the knockout rounds will be for most teams.

Just like in any tournament, all teams would prefer to face the ones they view as weaker and avoid being placed in the "Group of Death," the moniker given to the group perceived to be the most difficult in a tournament.

"You don't want to be one of these heroes — like, 'give me the best,'" says Herculez Gomez, who played for the U.S. in the 2010 World Cup and now hosts the Men in Blazers podcast Vamos. "That's not how it works. Even the best don't want the best at the World Cup."

But World Cups are unpredictable. Strong soccer powerhouses have failed to advance past the World Cup's group stage before, including Germany in 2018 and 2022, and Spain in 2014.

That said, this year's tournament is bigger. Even finishing third in a four-team group can ensure qualification, although where each team ends up within its group will determine its path through the knockout rounds.

Which are the early favorites and the teams to watch?

Predictably, among the early favorites are recent global soccer powerhouses such as Spain, England and France, along with South American teams, such as Argentina and Brazil.

But there will be interesting storylines to watch outside the favorites, including Curaçao, which became the smallest country to qualify for the World Cup, with a population of just over 150,000 people.

And, of course, there will be enormous interest in which teams the three hosts will end up facing in their respective groups.

The U.S. men's national team, for example, is approaching the World Cup draw with some momentum after staying undefeated in the past five games. Its most recent record marks a big improvement after a rocky period under coach Mauricio Pochettino and previous coach Gregg Berhalter, which included an early exit from last year's Copa America regional tournament.

NPR sports correspondent Becky Sullivan contributed to this report.
Copyright 2025 NPR