The Brief

The last thing David Ramirez remembers, he was protesting peacefully at a pro-Palestinian encampment at UCLA in the early hours of May 2, 2024.

Then, he said everything seemed to move in slow motion, and there was “nothing but ringing” in his ear.

Listen 24:29

Apple

Spotify

After the George Floyd protests of 2020, California took steps to reign in violent policing of protests by passing laws restricting how law enforcement uses less-lethal weapons, like tasers and rubber bullets. But high profile protests in 2024 and 2025 – including this summer’s protests against the ICE raids in Los Angeles – have revealed major flaws in those laws. LAist Senior Editor Jared Bennett joins us to talk about an investigation around these flaws and what they mean for people exercising their right to free speech.

Why California's protest law is flawed and the consequences to protesters

After the George Floyd protests of 2020, California took steps to reign in violent policing of protests by passing laws restricting how law enforcement uses less-lethal weapons, like tasers and rubber bullets. But high profile protests in 2024 and 2025 – including this summer’s protests against the ICE raids in Los Angeles – have revealed major flaws in those laws. LAist Senior Editor Jared Bennett joins us to talk about an investigation around these flaws and what they mean for people exercising their right to free speech.

Subscribe

• Apple
• Spotify

He’d just been shot in the head with a less-lethal projectile by law enforcement officers while they cleared the encampment. Ramirez described his experience at a news conference this past May.

“My first instinct was to remove the foreign object, but it triggered profuse bleeding,” he said while standing in front of a poster bearing the image of his wound.

In 2021, California lawmakers passed a law that was supposed to prevent injuries like the one Ramirez sustained. The law, Assembly Bill 48, forbids law enforcement from targeting peaceful protesters with chemical agents and less-lethal projectiles like the 40mm kinetic energy projectiles that injured Ramirez. Officers also aren’t supposed to aim less-lethal projectiles at the head.

Ramirez and three other people suing law enforcement over the violent response to the 2024 campus protests say officers with the Los Angeles Police Department and California Highway Patrol broke state law that day.

The law requires that agencies report on their use of less-lethal weapons and resulting injuries. More than a year later, Ramirez still doesn’t know who fired the projectile that hit him in the head, and neither agency has reported injuring any protesters while clearing the encampment.

Four years after California lawmakers tried to rein in violent policing at protests, Ramirez’s lawsuit and more recent protests against federal immigration raids have put law enforcement’s actions under a microscope and revealed major gaps in enforcement of California’s existing protest laws.

LAist found that hundreds of agencies do not appear to document the use of less-lethal weapons, as required by law. The extent of that documentation varies from agency to agency, making it difficult to hold law enforcement accountable when something goes wrong.

While the California Department of Justice is responsible for posting all such reports on a public website, the agency says it's not responsible for making agencies write the reports or evaluating what’s in them. Compliance with the law is left entirely up to the agencies — some of which told LAist they don’t have staffing or capacity to manage.

Cristina Garcia, a former state Assembly member from Bell Gardens and primary sponsor of Assembly Bill 48, said she and other lawmakers passed the law to protect the rights of Californians, and said it should be up to the DOJ to make sure that’s happening.

“Is this [law] being implemented properly, are we meeting expectations, are we breaking promises? That should be asked of the DOJ,” she said. “If we don’t have enforcement, do we really have a law?”

What the law says

California lawmakers passed Assembly Bill 48 after seeing the police response to protests in the summer of 2020 that followed the murder of George Floyd by a Minnesota police officer.

Still from LAPD body camera footage, showing officer shooting Benjamin Montemayor with a projectile during the protests of 2020.

(

YouTube

/

Courtesy LAPD

)

Under AB 48, officers are only allowed to deploy crowd control tools — including chemical agents or less-lethal projectiles — in response to violence, physical threats or to an “objectively dangerous and unlawful situation.”

The law forbids authorities from aiming at protesters' heads, neck or vital organs, or firing indiscriminately into a crowd.

The same year AB 48 became law in 2021, U.S. District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall issued a court order placing similar restrictions on the LAPD, specifically.

Civil rights lawyers told LAist in June that the LAPD and other agencies responding to protests that month against federal immigration enforcement appear to have violated this law and the court order. They’ve secured a separate court order forbidding the LAPD from targeting journalists and filed several lawsuits on behalf of protesters.

The law gives agencies 60 days to publish reports about their use of force at protests. The LAPD missed this deadline to report on their response to the protests in June on Aug. 5.

LAPD has not responded to repeated questions about the delayed report.

The LAPD’s website does include reports on previous protests. And the department is among just 32 out of the 624 law enforcement agencies in California that have sent crowd control reports to the California Department of Justice.

LAist reviewed news reports and police documents and found several instances where agencies used less-lethal weapons during protests, yet no crowd control records were posted online as required by state law.

In one instance, an LAPD officer allegedly shot a man in the jaw with a less-lethal projectile on June 8. While LAPD has started conducting an internal investigation into the incident, a report has yet to be generated. It’s been 93 days since the man was shot.

San Francisco police officers fired pepperballs, a form of less-lethal projectile with a chemical irritant, while responding to anti-immigration enforcement protests on June 8, according to news reports. The agency does not appear to file AB 48 reports with the California Department of Justice, and LAist has been unable to locate any such reports on the agency’s website.

The San Francisco Police Department has not yet responded to a request for comment.

In another, UC Riverside PD documented using a less-lethal weapon during a joint response during UC Berkeley’s pro-Palestinian protests in a separate report, yet has not created an AB 48 report for that incident.

UC Riverside Police Lt. Jason Day said his small department didn’t have the capacity to compile the reports.

“A lot of times things are just going to have to get set aside,” he told LAist.

LAPD creates a perimeter to move back anti-ICE protesters on San Pedro Street on June 9, 2025.

(

Carlin Stiehl/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

/

Los Angeles Times

)

Documenting injuries

Civil rights attorneys and experts told LAist that monitoring the use of chemical agents and less-lethal projectiles at protests is important because, despite their name, these weapons are dangerous.

“They absolutely are lethal weapons. They’ve killed people, they've permanently disabled people, caused really significant and substantial injuries to people,” said Rebecca Brown, an attorney who is representing Ramirez and other plaintiffs in a lawsuit against agencies for allegedly misusing less-lethal weapons. “These should not be brought to a protest in the first place.”

Dozens of injuries have been documented by news organizations, on social media and in lawsuits from the May 2 protest where Ramirez was injured.

The LAPD and CHP both filed reports about their use of force at the UCLA protest, but neither documented any injuries as a result of less-lethal weapons.

Carlena Orosco, an assistant professor of criminal justice at California State University, Los Angeles, said the nature of protest response, where multiple agencies often respond to incidents together, makes it difficult to document injuries.

“There are going to be data limitations when it comes to not only identifying categories of injuries, but also ensuring that they are reported comprehensively and accurately… especially when we think of a crowd situation,” she said.

For Brown, law enforcement’s failure to fully document the injuries they cause shows a lack of enforcement.

During the pro-Palestinian demonstrations, Brown said “CHP and LAPD did not put any effort into identifying who they hurt, identifying what their injuries were, what kind of treatment they needed.” Without an enforcement mechanism making sure they report injuries, she said law enforcement agencies are “only going to report on that when they have to.”

LAPD has not responded to multiple requests for comment. A spokesperson for the CHP said the agency could not comment due to pending litigation.

Who’s responsible?

Garcia, the former Assemblymember and lead sponsor on Assembly Bill 48, said it should be up to the California Department of Justice to make sure agencies are reporting what they need to comply with the law.

The DOJ doesn’t see it that way. The law requires the department to compile and publish a list of AB 48 webpages from all law enforcement agencies. But according to the DOJ's spokesperson, Elissa Perez, the law doesn’t ask the agency to do anything else by way of enforcement.

“The bill [AB 48] does not include requirements for DOJ to review, audit, or enforce law enforcement agency requirements,” Perez wrote to LAist.

The law also does not outline repercussions for non-compliant agencies.

According to the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, which sets selection and training standards for California law enforcement, agencies are responsible for complying with the law, but there’s no repercussions if they don’t.

“The way the law is written, there is no stated enforcement mechanism,” Meagan Poulos with the commission wrote to LAist in an email. “The individual agencies are responsible.”

Orosco of Cal State LA said while it’s crucial to ensure law enforcement agencies follow the law, it would be difficult for the DOJ to check what is written in the reports filed by individual departments.

“I don't know how they would go about reviewing every department's information,” she said.

Without proactive enforcement of the law, LAist found there are few options for citizens to hold agencies accountable for their use of weapons at protests.

Officers who violate internal department policy can be punished, but those investigations often take years.

Civil lawsuits can also take years and the financial burden ultimately falls to the taxpayer. Los Angeles has so far paid $20 million to resolve lawsuits stemming from the LAPD’s response to protests in 2020.

Garcia said lawsuits like those cost taxpayer dollars and threaten existing services for constituents, so city officials should be interested in making their police departments follow the law.

Five years after Assembly Bill 48 became law, Garcia says proper enforcement requires constant partnership between cities, police departments, the DOJ, the media and constituents.

“Compliance and accountability is a constant, ongoing situation,” she said. “It's never a one-and-done. It's a partnership.”

Watchdog Editor Jared Bennett contributed to this report.

As the region’s lead homelessness agency, the main job of the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority this year was to dole out nearly $700 million to contractors who operate shelters and other services for unhoused people.

But it turns out that more than halfway through the budget year, many of LAHSA’s 116 service providers are still waiting for LAHSA to pay them for those services. In all, the agency told LAist that it owes at least $69 million in outstanding invoices to providers. About 40% of those invoices are more than two months old.

Those delayed payments are causing cash flow problems for organizations large and small. Several providers told LAist that they've have had to dip into reserves or take on debt.

“These delays are one of the biggest issues for our organization because if we cannot pay our staff, we don't operate,” said Stephanie Klasky-Gamer, CEO of the nonprofit LA Family Housing. "That breaks the entire system and renders people homeless.”

Where things stand

LAHSA officials have said they're working to fix delays and make internal changes so that they don’t happen again.

And they offered details on how they got here:

• They said some payments were delayed because the agency is struggling to process an influx of recently submitted invoices.
• Other payments are delayed because the agency is still waiting for millions in payments, mostly from the city of L.A.

“While a combination of contracting delays, outdated internal policies, and a leadership vacuum caused by the historic funding shifts happening within the rehousing system all contributed to this bottleneck, we are already taking corrective action,” Ahmad Chapman, a LAHSA spokesperson, said in a statement.

At a LAHSA Finance Committee meeting Friday, Janine Lim, the agency's deputy chief financial office, broke down the issues based on agency.

• Under contracts funded by city, the agency doesn’t have some of the money it owes providers, Lim said.
• For county-funded contracts, LAHSA has the funds, but has failed to pass some of them to providers, she said.

Lim acknowledged her department failed to request certain county funds and told commissioners her team is overwhelmed by staff turnover and nonstop crisis management.

Lindsey Horvath's rebuke

The meeting prompted a harsh rebuke from L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath Friday night, who issued a statement demanding a public hearing about LAHSA’s late payments, a forensic audit and immediate payment of all outstanding invoices to county-funded contractors.

“If LAHSA were a publicly traded company, regulators would shut them down.” Horvath said, in a statement “LAHSA balance sheets don’t balance, and they fail to provide real-time financial information to their very own commissioners.”

LAHSA’s funding sources

LAHSA has an approved budget of about $828 million this fiscal year. Most of that money — $697 million — comes from a variety of government sources and passes along to contracted service providers.

This budget year it breaks down like this, according to LAHSA records:

• 46% from L.A. County
• 35% from the city of Los Angeles
• Nearly 11% from the federal government
• More than 8% from the state of California
• A small fraction from private philanthropy,

LAHSA representatives said the delayed payments stem partly from delays in finalizing contracts with homeless service providers this fiscal year, which started July 1.

By that time, the agency had only finalized about one third of its contracts with providers. Providers can’t file invoices until those contracts are final.

Now, eight months into the budget year, LAHSA said more than 99% of contracts are in place. But many weren’t finalized until December. Now that contracts are executed, there’s an “avalanche” of recent invoices from providers, covering the past six months, according to LAHSA officials.

Challenges for providers 

South L.A homeless services provider HOPICS said LAHSA owed it nearly $20 million as of last month, because of late contract executions and delayed payments across two budget years.

“Providers cannot continue operating on uncertainty and IOUs,” the Kelvin Driscoll, the nonprofit's director, told LAist. “To keep services operating, we, like other organizations, have had to exhaust reserves and take on debt.”

Some homeless services providers said late payments have been a problem, but not an insurmountable one.

“The issue of floating unpaid invoices is part of business, especially if we're working with bureaucracy and government.” said Rowan Vansleve, president of Hope The Mission. “Anybody who's taken a contract with the government is not expecting to be paid incredibly quickly.”

Still, as the size of L.A.’s homeless services sector has grown, some service providers say they are being asked to take on larger financial burdens. LA Family Housing is waiting on both reimbursement payments and advances for recent months, its CEO said.

“Our contract is with LAHSA,” said Klasky-Gamer. “We are delivering on our end of the contract by delivering the service. They're not able to deliver on their end of the contract because they don't have access to the money to pay us.”

At the Friday meeting, LAHSA Commissioner Amy Perkins said she had received “countless” calls from leaders of large providers who are considering closing down.

“They don’t want to say that publicly because they don’t want to scare their staff and they will do everything they can not to close,” Perkins said. “They have maxed out their lines of credit. There's no more rocks to turn over. Vendors are walking off jobs.”

Commissioners demands answers

Last year, L.A. County supervisors voted to strip LAHSA of about $300 million in county funding from LAHSA, beginning this July. Until then, county homelessness funding still goes through LAHSA.

Perkins, appointed to the LAHSA Commission by Horvath, told LAHSA officials on Friday that the payment crisis shows why the county's move was necessary.

"This is exactly why we have said for a long time that the structure of LAHSA doesn't work,” Perkins said. “How are you supposed to administer funding for people who won't pay you?”

Justin Szlasa, another LAHSA Commission member said he has frequently heard service providers complain that LAHSA pays them late.

Szlasa said he asked for an itemized summary of all of LAHSA’s unpaid bills. The report should have been easy to generate immediately, Szlasa said.

Months later, LAHSA still has not produced the document, he said. This month, he filed a public records request for that information, including which contractors LAHSA owes money to and how behind on payments it is.

“We as commissioners don’t have visibility into how we’re doing if we don’t know how much money we owe and how late we are with payments to these service providers on the front lines of our homelessness response,” Szlasa said.

LAHSA officials said the agency will work with outside consultants to update the agency’s finance operations to ensure providers are paid accurately and on time.

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 Sidiqqi, 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