The Brief

This story first published in The LA Local.

Take a deep breath. The elimination rounds of the World Cup have begun. Mexico will battle against Ecuador on Tuesday, with kickoff at 6 p.m. local time.

After winning every game in their group for the first time in their history, Mexico faces their toughest opponent yet. There is no room for mistakes, a loss means instant elimination for either team. Ecuador barely squeezed out of their group with a final impressive victory against Germany. Now potentially 80,000 Mexican fans await them in Estadio Azteca.

Here are the free spots showing the game all over Koreatown, Pico Union, and Westlake. There are no official park-sponsored watch parties in the local neighborhoods, according to the city’s Kick It In the Park schedule, but here are a few of the local sports bars, restaurants and other spots that will be showing the game.

Koreatown

The Line Hotel
3515 Wilshire Blvd. 
The hotel has been showing games throughout the tournament and will have special offers on drinks and food. The venue will show the game on a large LED screen, with live mariachi band and DJ set by Chulita Vinyl Club. There will also be a 90-minute unlimited margarita pitchers for $45 per person, according to the organizers. More information can be found here.

Biergarten
206 N. Western Ave.
Don’t be mistaken. The Biergarten is showing every match on multiple screens all over the bar. Their promise of Korean-German fusion is accompanied by a plethora of drinks on tap. More information can be found here.

Eastwood
611 S. Western Ave.
The country inspired bar and restaurant will host the game on various screens around the bar as well as serving bar towers and other specials. If the game isn’t enough of an emotional rollercoaster for fans, they can try their luck on the bar’s mechanical bull. Door will open at 430pm. More information can be found here.

Baja’s Grill Sports Cantina
3250 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 103
For flavors of Baja California during the game this Cantina will be running specials and happy hour. The Bar is surrounded by multiple screens and regularly hosts $35 open bars from 6-10pm.

Lock and Key 
239 S. Vermont Ave. 
The cocktail den will be hosting the game alongside $8 drink specials for margaritas, palomas, and vodka martinis. Multiple DJs will also be present during and after the game. More information can be found here.

DJM Soju Bar
3275 Wilshire Blvd.
The restaurant will host the game both indoors and outdoors alongside food and drink specials. They serve a variety of plates from spicy pork bulgogi, seafood soup, to sweet and sour chicken. A wide variety of soju is also offered. Doors will open at 4pm. More information can be found here.

Westlake and Pico Union 

Pulgarcito Family Restaurant 
2500 W. Pico Blvd.
This family-owned restaurant serves pupusas, quesabirria and plato de dirria, along with camarones a la diabla, plátanos fritos with beans and crema and many more Salvadorean meals. They also have cold drinks and multiple screens for the game. More information can be found here.

Casa Gish Bac Cocina Oaxaqueña                                                                                 1436 S. Vermont Ave. 
The Oaxacan restaurant will be showing the games on multiple TVs as well as on a projector. Happy hour is from 2-6pm right before kickoff. Deals include $5 beers and $2 tacos. They’re also sweetening the celebrations with a free shot with every Mexico goal. More information can be found here.

Huicho’s Bakery                                                                                                                 1250 Vermont Ave.
The local bakery will be showing the game outside of their shop on one TV. They offer a variety of Central American and Mexican food as well as pastries and bread.

Xecul Restaurante Guatemalteco
1051 S. Alvarado St.
The Guatemalan restaurant will show the game on two TVs indoors. They offer a wide variety of traditional Guatemalan flavors like their El Shuco Xecul as well as mixed fusion plates like Chowmein mixto.

Sol Agave
800 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite A130
For a more relaxed atmosphere this restaurant serves upscale Mexican cuisine and will be showing the game with TVs around their bar and dining areas. Margaritas and drink specials will be served.

Cafe con Ron
819 S. Flower St.
The Mexican seafood and brunch location will be hosting the game with TVs around their cantina area. They offer fish tacos as well as quesabirria and drink specials. More information can be found here.

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Tuesday agreed to pay $9.6 million to the family of a man fatally shot by sheriff’s deputies in Compton in 2020 to settle a wrongful death lawsuit.

The unusually large settlement came amid claims Samuel Herrera Jr. was unarmed, targeted by deputies because he was Mexican-American and that the deputies involved were part of a law enforcement gang.

The shooting was the subject of a rare coroner's inquest in 2021 — one of three conducted amid widespread criticism of deputy-involved shootings in the wake of the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. That inquest did not conclude deputies acted wrongfully.

A review by the District Attorney also determined the deputies acted within the law.

But a civil rights lawsuit filed by Herrera’s family claims deputies acted with negligence.

“This lawsuit concerns the outrageous and unlawful use of deadly force by county deputies and officers, as well as their malicious effort to distort the true facts of their own misconduct,” the lawsuit states. Herrera posed no threat to deputies, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of Herrera’s two minor sons and minor daughter.

While the county admitted no wrongdoing, it's not unusual for the county to settle a lawsuit if they believe the damages could be higher if they lost in a jury trial.

A Corrective Action report issued by county lawyers laying out a chronology of events appeared to contradict the lawsuit’s allegations. It also said the use of force and tactical actions employed by some deputies were inconsistent with established policy, practice and training. Contributing factors included deficiencies in coordination, use of cover, communication, and target acquisition.

What the County Counsel report said

Deputies were serving an early morning search warrant on a house where Herrera., 41, was believed to be selling methamphetamine, according to a report by the County Counsel’s office. The report said Herrera was also believed to carry a gun when he sold drugs.

The deputies ended up outside a back garage where Herrera was inside. What happened next was a series of shootings by deputies.

The County Counsel said deputies heard gunshots from the garage and shot at one of the side doors when they thought they saw the barrel of a gun. When a second door opened, deputies fired again. A short time later a fire broke out in the garage, according to the report.

Herrera eventually crawled out of a hole in the garage and “paced back and forth, then turned to the left and made a sudden movement, as if to shoot at the deputies,” the County Counsel report said. Deputies opened fire.

Deputies fired “another volley of gunfire” as Herrera lay wounded on the ground, believing he was reaching for a gun. Herrera was hit by bullets ten times, according to the medical examiner.

An AR-15 magazine and .45 Glock handgun magazine were found directly next to him, according to the report.

What the lawsuit said

The lawsuit by Herrera’s family claimed he was unarmed at the time of the shooting and said that he did not pose an “objectively reasonable threat” to anyone. It noted deputies opened fire on the garage while Herrera’s brother and a woman and child were still inside. Herrera’s brother Jesus suffered a gunshot wound.

Deputies “through the exercise of reasonable and due diligence, should have known that minors, infants, women and other unintended targets of their raid,” would be on the property.

The lawsuit also claimed Herrera and the others were targeted because they are Mexican American and that the deputies were part of a law enforcement gang.

The lawsuit states the shooting was “part of the county’s long-standing custom, habit, and practice of promoting certain gang-like clique members of the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department who wear matching tattoos, and engage in initiation rites including using deadly force, seemingly as a part of some gang initiation-like rite, in an unreasonable or excessive manner against Black and Brown men in Los Angeles County.”

The lawsuit does not name the deputies that might have been involved.

A Loyola Law School report documents the existence of at least 18 different deputy gangs and cliques over the last five decades, such as the Banditos, Executioners, and Regulators.

In a statement, the Sheriff’s Department said it does not tolerate any gang-like behavior and “is actively addressing the long-standing issue of law enforcement gangs and is holding personnel accountable for misconduct related to gang like actions.”

The statement also said the department “categorically rejects any suggestion that our deputies target individuals based on race or ethnicity. Such allegations are inconsistent with our policies, training, oversight, and our commitment to constitutional policing.”

The department's critical incident video released shortly after the incident said deputies found a loaded AK-47 assault weapon and loaded handgun inside the garage.

California can continue its long-held policy of allowing transgender student athletes to play on girls’ and women’s sports teams, under a U.S. Supreme Court ruling issued Tuesday.

“With this ruling, schools and states like California can continue to adopt inclusive policies that ensure every student is treated with dignity and respect,” Tony Hoang, executive director of the LGBTQ advocacy group Equality California said. “Inclusive policies are working across the country, including here in California, where transgender young people have participated in school sports for years without incident.”

The court’s 6-3 decision allows – but doesn’t require – states to bar transgender student athletes from playing on girls’ and women’s sports teams, upholding state laws in Idaho and West Virginia. Including California, 23 states let transgender students play on teams that align with their gender identity.

Proponents of a ban also celebrated the court’s ruling, saying it’s a major step forward in their fight to keep transgender athletes out of girls sports, and it potentially opens the door to restrictions in the future.

“The Supreme Court just delivered a major victory for girls and for common sense,” said Sonja Shaw, a Chino Valley Unified school board member who’s running for state superintendent. She added that “California should be leading the nation in protecting girls, not forcing them to surrender their rights … We will continue fighting until every girl has the opportunity to compete on a level playing field.”

California, an epicenter of the LGBTQ rights movement, has long maintained policies that protect transgender students in K-12 schools. The California Interscholastic Federation, which oversees high school sports in the state, also allows transgender students to play on sports teams that align with their gender identity.

Nationwide, LGBTQ advocates decried the court’s ruling as a blow to transgender peoples’ rights generally, especially in states that currently restrict – or are leaning toward restrictions of – those rights.

“The SCOTUS majority decision furthers the Trump administration’s widespread attack on civil rights protections and continued attempt to erase transgender individuals from society, including through distorted interpretation of law,” said Noreen Farrell, executive director of Equal Rights Advocates. “(We) will continue fighting for trans equality and trans rights.”

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

A wave of relief moved through L.A. communities on Tuesday after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship.

The 6-3 decision to affirm the nation’s 158-year-old legal standard also rejected an executive order signed by President Donald Trump on Jan. 20, 2025, moments after his inauguration. Had the Supreme Court upheld the executive order, citizenship for anyone born in the U.S. would have depended on their parents’ nationality and residence history.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who argued on behalf of the Trump administration, said the nation’s longstanding practice has incentivized foreigners to travel to the U.S. to have babies — including some from “hostile nations.”

“ For more than a century and a half, our laws have reaffirmed that fundamental right. Today's ruling is a long overdue message to Donald Trump: No president can pretend to erase a bedrock constitutional guarantee with the flick of a pen,” said Alvaro Huerta, director of litigation and advocacy at Immigrant Defenders Law Center.

“We're relieved that the Supreme Court firmly rejected the Trump administration's overreach and reaffirmed what frankly should never have been in question,” he added. “ Today, we can breathe a sigh of relief.”

Angelenos respond to SCOTUS

In Los Angeles, the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights spoke to reporters at its headquarters, inviting fellow advocates and local residents of all ages to celebrate the majority opinion.

“ The decision today carries profound meaning for all of us,” said Dahni Tsuboi, CEO of Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Southern California, which was among dozens of advocate groups that filed a brief in support of immigrant families.

“More than 60%of Asian Americans in this nation were born somewhere else. So for us, immigration is not a policy debate . . . It is our story of how we came here, how we created home here, how our children's dreams took shape,” she said.

“ The Trump administration tried to challenge the 14th Amendment, which initially guaranteed birthright citizenship in the aftermath of slavery, ensuring that formerly enslaved Black people and their descendants could not be denied membership in the nation that they built,” added Maraky Alemseged, an organizer with the Black Alliance for Just Immigration.

The Supreme Court’s ruling on birthright citizenship, they noted, comes on the heels of its decision to allow the Trump administration to cancel temporary protected status for Haitians and other groups, without being subject to review in federal courts. The administration has also moved to cancel naturalization ceremonies for people who hail from countries it’s deemed to be “high-risk.”

In response, Alemseged called for continued advocacy and “a broader vision of belonging, one where humanity is not contingent on [immigrant] status.”

Why it matters

Cecilia Wang, national legal director of the ACLU, represented families who could have been affected. The nonprofit sued the Trump administration almost immediately after the president signed the executive order.

When speaking before the Supreme Court in April, Wang — herself a birthright citizen — pointed to some of the darkest moments in U.S. history to bolster her argument.

“ Even in World War II, when the United States was detaining Japanese nationals who were deemed ‘enemy aliens’ of the United States, when those ‘enemy aliens’ had babies in these detention camps, everyone agreed that those babies were U.S. citizens,” she said.

Wang also cited United States v. Wong Kim Ark, a landmark case involving a Chinese American man from California. In that 1898 case, Wang noted, the court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship to almost anyone born in the country, regardless of their parents' nationality or immigration status.

In 2023, birthing people who were undocumented immigrants or who had legal temporary status had 320,000 babies, representing about 9% of all the 3.6 million children born in the U.S. that year. According to the Pew Research Center, about 260,000 of those babies would not have qualified for birthright citizenship if Trump’s executive order had already been in effect.

Immigrant advocates feared such children would become part of a permanent underclass. The United Nations has signaled that when people are rendered stateless, they can encounter a host of challenges — everything from barriers accessing education and healthcare to the inability to travel freely. Arguing on behalf of the Trump administration, Sauer dismissed those concerns as alarmist “ end-of-the-world type predictions.”