The Brief

Riverside Sheriff Chad Bianco lost in California’s Supreme Court on Thursday morning. Then he lost again.

In back-to-back rulings, the justices ruled unanimously that Bianco broke the law when he seized more than 650,000 ballots from that county’s top election administrator earlier this year and that he broke it again when he ignored directives from the state’s attorney general to reverse course shortly after.

The court ruled that Bianco must end the investigation, pending a review by Attorney General Rob Bonta.

Bianco’s argument "overlooks that allowing law enforcement unfettered access to ballots, or the ability to handle and count them in secret based on unregulated protocols, itself creates a substantial risk to election integrity,” Guerrero wrote.

“There is no need to introduce this risk because the Elections Code already contains its own comprehensive procedures for recounting and examining ballots, including for law enforcement purposes, without exposing them to alteration or tampering — unlike the unlawful seizure that occurred here,” the ruling read.

The twin courtroom defeats for the conservative lawman who unsuccessfully ran for governor as a Republican earlier this year represents both a legal and moral victory for voting rights advocates who warned that Bianco’s ballot seizure could serve as a playbook for other right-wing law enforcement officers hoping to upset the outcome of the coming midterm elections.

Bianco went before the California Supreme Court in August to argue that a search warrant obtained by a politically friendly judge was sufficient justification to take the ballots. That’s despite a state law prohibiting the removal of ballots, contested or otherwise, from election officials.

In the second case, Bianco argued that Bonta overstepped his authority in directing him to hold off on executing the warrant.

The justices expressed varying degrees of skepticism about both arguments last month, describing them as “bizarre” and “more than counterintuitive.”

In their rulings on Thursday, the justices adopted a similarly withering tone.

“In short, Bianco’s arguments fail to persuade us that we should interpret (California election law) in a manner inconsistent with its plain text, which mandates that voted ballots remain in the custody of elections officials,” wrote Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero.

Bianco seized the ballots after the November 2025 special election, in which a majority of voters agreed to redraw the state’s political boundaries to favor Democrats. As CalMatters reported shortly after the raid, he did so at the urging of members of the “constitutional sheriff” movement and other local activists who pointed to apparent discrepancies in local election results.

Riverside’s registrar of voters, the county’s top election administrator, has said those claims were based on a misinterpretation of preliminary vote count data.

Secretary of State Shirley Weber argued in a friend-of-the-court brief that California law explicitly dictates that ballots must remain in the custody of an elections official.

“Sheriff Bianco violated (California election law’s) clear mandate when he removed voted ballots from the custody of the Riverside County Registrar of Voters,” Weber said in the brief. “For that reason alone, the court should issue an order compelling the return of those ballots and related materials to the proper custodian dictated by the elections code.

California Democratic leaders passed two new laws after Bianco’s office seized the ballots. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed them last week. One makes it a felony to seize — or order the seizure of — ballots, election records or voting machines before election results are certified. The other expands on existing state election laws and makes it illegal to take election materials or voting machines from elections officials.

With the ruling today, Bianco will be required to give the ballots back to the registrar. But the matter may not be settled yet. In August, Bianco said his office would continue its investigation into the 2025 election, no matter the court’s ruling.

The ruling also helped settle a rarely contested but politically important question at the heart of California’s constitutional order: Do local law enforcement leaders answer to the state attorney general?

The California constitution grants the attorney general “direct supervision” over sheriffs. Past attorneys general have rarely exercised such supervision and when they have it hasn’t been challenged. Bianco argued that “supervision” in this case amounts to more of an advisory role.

In the second of two rulings today, the court disagreed, firmly putting the debate to bed.

“[Bianco’s] arguments all boil down to the unsustainable view that the state’s chief law enforcement officer … must remain a mere bystander to an unprecedented sheriff’s investigation of undeniable statewide significance," the court ruled. "As we have explained, that is not the case.”

CalMatters reporter Lynn La contributed to this story.

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

A new report from the ACLU and Amnesty International USA says universities like the University of California, Los Angeles violated free speech laws and imposed severe punishments on students, faculty and staff who expressed support for Palestinian rights. The universities’ responses “made it easier for the Trump administration to crack down on student activism, causing long-term damage to higher education.”

In 2024, a wave of activism overtook college campuses — including the USC and UCLA — as students erected tents and set up encampments to protest Israel’s war in Gaza and calling to cut ties with Israel.

The universities’ response and the Trump administration’s subsequent actions, according to the report, have “profoundly chilled student speech and advocacy, resulting in a steep decline in protests and a less visible protest movement on campuses across the country.”

What happened at UCLA?

Students set up an encampment in Dickson Court in spring 2024 to protest UCLA’s financial connections to arms manufacturers, as well as Israel’s military actions in Gaza. Five days later, around 100 masked counter-protesters attacked the encampment overnight. At the time, LAist reported how students were attacked with sticks, mace spray and fireworks.

The lack of police response to the attacks was heavily criticized; UCLA promised an independent investigation.

But soon after the attack, university officials called the encampment unlawful; law enforcement personnel from several departments tore it down overnight.

That police response drew widespread criticism and lawsuits. A UCLA Task Force reported, “We have documented multiple injuries from rubber bullets and police batons … We have seen the injuries to the face, head, legs, and chest. Some students were shot at close range. The police shot regular volleys of stun grenades, beat protesters with batons.”

A push against student activism

Soon after UCLA’s encampment was disbanded, the University of California enacted a new policy mandating disciplinary proceedings for anyone arrested. UCLA said this new policy would be implemented — retroactively — for those arrested in the encampment breakup. UCLA also banned encampments for four months.

The increased police presence on the Westwood campus following the disbanding of the encampment was “akin to a police state,” with students and faculty saying they were on high alert.

According to the report, UCLA’s response to the encampment was “particularly problematic” and “exemplified the heavy-handed and excessive responses by universities and colleges to campus protests, as well as the ongoing suppression and retaliation against pro-Palestine speech and expression on campus.” Other schools singled out for their responses include Columbia University, Tulane University, the University of Michigan and the University of Texas at Austin.

The report says UCLA's response also made it easier for the Trump administration to take further action as well, such as by:

• Withholding federal research grants from universities
• Coercing universities into "accepting broad-ranging agreements to restore federal funding in exchange for making institutional changes in programs, curricula, admissions, and hiring, curtailing the free speech rights of students and faculty."
• Targeting noncitizen students for arrest and deportation "in direct retaliation for their advocacy for Palestinian rights."

UCLA did not respond to LAist's request for comment.

How student activism changed

According to the report, the number of protests fell by 64% in the fall 2024 semester compared to the previous year, with protests declining through to the current academic year.

That was despite sympathy growing for Palestinians and support for Israel declining.

“The decline in protests was the direct result of crackdowns on protesters, university policies restricting protests, and the Trump administration’s attacks on universities,” according to the report.

You can read the full report here.

The long-awaited LAX People Mover train is facing new delays due to issues with the final stage of testing and ongoing disputes with the city of Los Angeles. The contractor’s latest estimate has the train opening in January.

Those delays put LINXS, the lead contractor for the project, teetering on breaching an agreement with the construction funders of the train. That agreement laid out that LINXS had to get the train ready for passengers before Oct. 8.

To avoid breaching that agreement, LINXS successfully secured an agreement this week with lenders to extend that deadline by two months to Dec. 8.

The 2.25-mile-long elevated train designed to transport riders between airport terminals and local transit was initially scheduled to open in 2023. The project is so far $880 million over budget.

The deadline extension

A spokesperson for LINXS said they welcome the agreement with lenders.

“The project is approximately 99% complete, and our focus remains on completing the remaining testing and turnover activities required,” the spokesperson said.

Had the deadline remained unchanged and the train unfinished, LINXS would have been in a state of a technical default, according to Scott Lehman, a senior director at Fitch Ratings, a credit agency monitoring the project.

Under a technical default, Lehman said lenders could have started a process of switching the contractor on the train though that would have proved to be “practically very difficult.”

The same situation could arise if the contractor fails to ready the train for passengers in December or if the deadline is not extended through a settlement in ongoing litigation against the city.

LINXS and the city of L.A. have agreed to extend contract deadlines on five occasions in the past.

Status of testing

In the spring, LINXS began testing how the train will operate when it’s open to the public. Airport officials at the time heralded the start of the testing phase as a “visible milestone” and predicted it would take 60 days to complete. 

According to documents prepared by LINXS requesting the latest deadline extension, recent testing has been paused twice to fix components of the tracks that "accommodate movement resulting from temperature changes, seismic activity and normal structural behavior.”

As of last week, LINXS said those fixes are “ongoing.”

The extension gives the contractor enough time to complete testing by Dec. 8 “as long as they start it within the next several weeks,” Shannon McCue, a director for Fitch Ratings, said in an interview with LAist.

In response to questions about the current testing delays, Los Angeles World Airports said safety and reliability of the train are its top priorities.

“We will not compromise on these stringent safety protocols, as delivering a system that safely, dependably, and durably serves Los Angeles and our upcoming global events is our primary focus,” the statement said.

When trailers began to drop around the film “Forgotten Island” earlier this spring, I knew it was already going to be something different. While this isn’t a new story about the power of friendship, it is one of the rare times it tells this story of leaving through an unapologetically Filipino diasporic lens in a mainstream production.

The DreamWorks Animation film from directors Joel Crawford and Januel Mercado centers around two best friends, Jo (voiced by H.E.R.) and Raissa (voiced by Liza Soberano) as they come to a pivotal point in their lives. Raissa is getting ready to leave the Philippines to attend CalTech in Pasadena. Beyond H.E.R and Soberano, the film doesn’t have any shortage in star power in voice talents including Dave Franco, Manny Jacinto, Dolly de Leon, Jo Koy, Ronny Chieng and Lea Salonga. 

Jo (H.E.R.) and Raissa (Liza Soberano) in DreamWorks Animation’s Forgotten Island, directed by Joel Crawford and Januel Mercado.

(

Courtesy of DreamWorks Animation

)

The story is packed with Filipino mythological creatures that Jo and Raissa encounter when they are transported to the magical island of Nakali during their last night together before Raissa departs for America. I was familiar with many of these beings through stories told by my grandmother such as the duwende, tiny spirits that inhabit many of the areas we walk, to others I had never heard of like the kapre, giant tree-like creatures. The great thing is that you don’t have to be Filipino to connect with this film. Its heart is the friendships and memories that keep people close and connected – which encapsulates much of the Filipino diaspora experience.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2020-2024 American Community Survey, about 4.6 million respondents identified their ethnicity as Filipino. The Greater Los Angeles metropolitan area is home to more than half a million people of Filipino descent including 154,000 in Los Angeles city and about 27,000 in Long Beach. 

While the film is set in the Philippines during the 1990s, it intentionally speaks to the Filipino diaspora experience, including the sacrifices that often accompany leaving your motherland for another place – something that immigrants and children of immigrants can relate to all in the backdrop of Filipino folklore and mythology.

(from left) Raissa (Liza Soberano) and Jo (H.E.R.) in DreamWorks Animation’s Forgotten Island, directed by Joel Crawford and Januel Mercado.

(

Courtesy of DreamWorks Animation

)

In the trailer, Raissa says “These are our memories,” to which Jo responds, “And we are going home.” The film connects remembering with belonging and brings up the question of what “home” really means. That is why many Los Angeles area Filipino community organizations and Filipino American student associations at universities are rallying people to the theater this weekend when the film opens nationwide on Friday. 

For any film, especially one that features an underrepresented community in general, the first box office weekend is crucial to show a strong attendance and audience interest. 

Los Angeles based non-profit Cinema Sala is teaming up with Filipinx in Entertainment (FXE) to conduct Operation “StormTheBoxOffice” for the film because “it is about proving that there is an audience for the Philippine diaspora. And that’s one of our biggest missions,” said Mallorie Ortega, co-founder and vice president of Cinema Sala. “It is proving that there is an audience hungry for our stories and that the industry should continue to say yes to us. So that’s why it was so important to organize our community and to sell out theaters.”

Manang (Lea Salonga) in DreamWorks Animation’s Forgotten Island, directed by Joel Crawford and Januel Mercado.

(

Courtesy of DreamWorks Animation

)

SoCal Filipinos, a non-profit network of Filipinos in Southern California, is also organizing screening events. 

“As SoCal Filipinos, we want to support events, artists and films. We decided to do a buyout of a theater. The response was amazing. We sold out of our auditorium in 30 minutes,” said founder Jason Lustina. The group bought out a theater at the AMC at the Grove. 

“We need to show Hollywood, film makers, directors and producers that Filipino stories matter and that our stories are relatable not to just Filipinos but to everyone,” he said. 

“If you’re Filipino whether in the Philippines or part of the diaspora you’ll for sure relate to it. From the characters to the scenes including the Filipino party it was like seeing a piece of our upbringing on the big screen,” Lustina said. 

Leaving doesn’t mean forgetting

Jennifer Adriatico-Westad knew she wanted to see it as soon as she learned that the story was set in the Philippines and incorporated Filipino culture and folklore. This past weekend, she caught an early screening at AMC Universal CityWalk.

“I thought it portrayed Filipino culture in a way that felt recognizable without making the culture itself feel like something that needed to be explained every few minutes. Filipino culture was simply part of the characters’ lives, which I appreciated,” she said. “For me, that also speaks about the diaspora experience. When families leave the Philippines, they don’t leave everything behind. They carry traditions, food, religion, humor, superstitions, folklore, family expectations, and even small mannerisms with them. Those things are then passed from one generation to the next. I think that experience translates across many cultures.” 

“People who leave their home countries in search of new opportunities often carry pieces of home with them. In this story, Filipino culture happens to be at the center…and it’s about time!” she said.

For Ortega, “Forgotten Island” dives even deeper than just representation. 

“Imagine there’s a part of your life that no one could ever understand…It’s not as simple as saying, ‘I feel seen when I watch this movie.’ It’s literally like my body is telling me, I belong,” Ortega said. “What is so important and impactful about this film for our community and for anyone who feels it –  there’s something about me that no one else could ever understand. This is what it is fulfilling for us. This is meant for us to feel like we belong.” 

The people and memories we carry

My family immigrated to the U.S. from the Philippines in the late 1950s and early 60s – first stopping in Compton, then Inglewood and eventually settling in Carson. Unlike most families, my family could not make regular annual trips back to The Philippines once they immigrated because money was tight while settling into a new life in an entirely new country. So they stayed connected with extended family by sending balikbayan boxes (filled with dry goods, gifts) usually around the holidays. However there’s a certain grief being separated by an ocean and once close relationships inevitably change. But what has kept the connections alive is remembering the family and community that continues to shape how we survive even if they are far away. That was confirmed to me when I went to the Philippines for the first time in 2008. 

Leezel Tanglao’s uncle, Oscar Guzman (far left), in front of the house he rented in Inglewood in the late 1950s and early 1960s.

(

Leezel Tanglao

/

The LA Local

)

As a Filipino American born in Long Beach and raised in Lancaster and Carson, I had only heard stories about my mom and my aunts and uncles growing up in this far away land. What little I knew about the Philippines came from them and the old Tagalog movies they would rent from the local Filipino grocery store. So when I went to the Philippines for the first time nearly 20 years ago, I finally understood the heavy feeling and unspoken uncertainty of not knowing when we would see each other again in person. That is what “Forgotten Island” packs and unpacks so seamlessly and reminds us. Remembering isn’t limited to holidays or when someone passes away. Memories are always alive when we care and take the time to remember.

The next time I would return to the Philippines would be more than a decade later in 2019, and this time, I was much older and wiser to not take time for granted. Some of the family members I saw back in 2008 were no longer there but their memories were as strong as if they were still alive today when we sat down to share stories. I would return two more times in 2022 and 2023 and during one of these last trips, one of my uncles had died while I was away. One of the last things my uncle Oscar had told my mom was that he couldn’t wait to hear what I ate during my time in the motherland and he was excited to just imagine all the flavors and smells of home when I returned – that’s what memories have the power to do – to unlock and transport you to another time. 

Leezel Tanglao and her uncle Oscar Guzman in Carson, California.

(

Leezel Tanglao

/

The LA Local

)

So when the film, “Forgotten Island” opens in theaters nationwide on Friday, it’s not just a celebration of Filipino culture or representation. It’s a reminder that not even distance can separate the bonds of community when memories are handled with care and also invites you to, “tayo na” (let’s go) and make more memories together.

The post Leaving home doesn’t mean letting go appeared first on LA Local.

A federal judge ordered the Trump administration on Thursday to temporarily restore access to the three media organizations banned from covering White House events last week by President Trump.

In a ruling issued shortly after midnight, U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly for the District of Columbia granted a 14-day temporary restraining order to CNN, MS NOW and Politico, which had press credentials of their journalists covering the White House revoked on Saturday.

Yet the news outlets said some of their journalists were denied entry to the White House early Thursday morning. They have asked the court for an immediate hearing.

"A Secret Service agent confiscated the hard pass of journalists from all three organizations," the request submitted to the court said. "And when Plaintiff [CNN Reporter] Betsy Klein, whose hard pass was confiscated on Saturday, September 19, requested to have her hard pass returned, her request was denied and she was refused access to the White House complex."

CNN, MS NOW and Politico filed a joint lawsuit against Trump to challenge that decision on Monday, on the grounds that their constitutional rights had been violated. They sought a temporary restraining order on the ban that would allow them to report from the White House as the proceedings in the case continue.

In his ruling, Kelly ordered White House representatives to "immediately return, reinstate, and restore" their press credentials to reporters of the three news organizations.

Kelly, a Trump appointee, wrote that news outlets were "likely to succeed in showing that their hard passes were revoked without constitutionally adequate due process," and on the grounds that "'individuals must receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before the Government deprives them' of a constitutionally protected interest."

Trump told reporters on Friday that his decision to ban the three media outlets from the White House had not been sparked by any specific reporting but the accumulation of what he called "two years of unfair and negative coverage."

However, a court filing by the Department of Justice on Wednesday argued that the three news organizations were barred because their reporting jeopardized national security and spread falsehoods.

Judge appeared inclined to order the White House to restore access

On Wednesday afternoon, U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly, who was nominated by Trump in 2017, held an emergency hearing after the news outlets filed a lawsuit seeking to undo the ban.

In his introductory remarks, Kelly said it appeared the White House had violated the news outlets' constitutional right of due process — which was set out in previous court decisions — when it abruptly blocked the access of journalists who held permanent credentials to work in the building.

During the emergency hearing on Wednesday, Theodore J. Boutrous, a lawyer representing the three news outlets, said the White House ban was in violation of CNN, MS NOW and Politico's First Amendment rights and called it a form of retaliation for their coverage of the president, adding that it was "probably the clearest case in history" of viewpoint discrimination.

Justice Department lawyer Michael Velchik, on the other hand, argued that access to the White House was a "privilege," not a right. He also cited national security concerns as a reason for the continued ban. In its legal filings, the department had included White House letters to the three news organizations taking issue with stories on a variety of topics, including construction of a "top secret" bunker under the White House ballroom, talks with Iran and whether there were "very bad" vibes at the recent Republican convention in Dallas.

Boutrous pushed back on the claim, asserting that the first mention of national security came only days after the ban was imposed.

" I guess the light bulb went off and they all decided 'Start talking about national security,'" Boutrous said.

Court ruling questions Trump's "actual motivation"

In his Thursday ruling, Kelly said "the court is skeptical — at least on this record — that Defendants' interest in safeguarding national security is the actual motivation for, or is even advanced by, the revocation of Plaintiffs' hard passes," in reference to White House press credentials.

In its court filing, in response to the lawsuit filed by the three media organizations, the Department of Justice included White House letters, dated Sept. 22, where it accuses the barred media outlets of "trafficking in verifiable falsehoods about national security and other issues, and publishing sensitive or classified information." Judge Kelly argued that the defendants offered no evidence to explain how "any of the reporting they identified in their letters to Plaintiffs damaged national security." Adding that the reporters who authored the stories that the DOJ lawyers identified in their letters to the three media "did not even hold hard passes."

Kelly also wrote that "the record is bereft of any relevant 'formally articulated standards' in place before any of the conduct" for which the reporters had their credentials revoked. He dismissed the examples provided by White House in the letters to the three outlets as a standard "so vague it hardly does the trick."

Kelly also ruled out the urgency of the case as to deviate from due process.

"Nothing in the record suggests the need for such urgency here," adding that some of the news stories identified in the DOJ notices to the media "stretches back months or years."

"The sorts of stories Defendants identify in the letters to Plaintiffs are routine," he added.

Kelly's ruling came just hours after an emergency session by the federal court in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday afternoon in a case that media organizations and experts say will further test the First Amendment protections under the Trump administration.
Copyright 2026 NPR