A tense standoff at UCLA has officers begin making arrests and dismantling a pro-Palestinian encampment in May 2024.
(
Brian Feinzimer
/
LAist
)
Topline:
A 2021 law requires California law enforcement agencies to make public reports about their use of chemical agents and less-lethal weapons at protests. But LAist found that hundreds of agencies do not appear to document the use of less-lethal weapons. The extent of that documentation varies from agency to agency, making it difficult to hold law enforcement accountable when something goes wrong.
Why it matters: 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.
Who is responsible: 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 sure they're written or evaluating their contents. 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.
What lawmakers say: Cristina Garcia, a former state Assembly member from Bell Gardens and primary sponsor of the law, said it should be up to the DOJ to make sure that’s happening.
Read on... for more on what LAist found with compliance and reporting issues.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
Cato Hernández
covers the mechanics of voting ahead of the general election.
Published June 19, 2026 5:00 AM
An election worker processes mail-in ballots in the city of Industry on June 2.
(
Patrick T. Fallon
/
AFP via Getty Images
)
Topline:
The next time you vote in California, doing it by mail may work differently. The Trump administration and Republican National Committee are fighting to change how these ballots are handled and counted, in ways that experts say could end up disenfranchising voters.
A looming ruling: Fourteen states, including California, count mail-in ballots after Election Day, as long as they are postmarked by then and arrive within a certain window. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to hand down a decision soon that could end grace periods like that in a case involving Mississippi’s election law.
Universal mail-in voting: President Donald Trump’s March executive order, among many things, tasks the U.S. Postal Service with being a gatekeeper for who gets a mail-in ballot. If implemented, some eligible voters could face trouble getting a mail-in ballot. This also depends on states sharing voter information with the federal government, which California has so far refused to do in other situations.
Could this happen by November? These changes could apply to the general election this year. We don’t know yet if the Supreme Court’s ruling will affect California, or if it could be delayed. The executive order on USPS is being challenged in court in multiplecases, so while the agency is moving forward with complying with the executive order, there’s a chance it will get held up.
Read on…. to learn more about how these changes could affect our elections.
Most California voters cast their ballots by mail, but two big federal changes are in the pipeline that could impact how those ballots are handled and counted in the November election.
One could come from a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that’s expected soon, and another through the United States Postal service, which is working to comply with President Donald Trump’s executive order that would give the agency the final say over who receives a mail-in ballot.
Fourteen states, including California, count mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day, as long as they are postmarked by then and show up within a certain window. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to hand down a decision that could end that kind of grace period.
The case in question is Watson v. Republican National Committee, which centers on whether Mississippi’s five-day grace period for late-arriving ballots is constitutional under federal law. In California, that period is seven days.
Geoffrey Skelley, chief elections analyst at Decision Desk HQ, told LAist the RNC’s argument centers on a federal law enacted in 1845 that set Election Day as the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, and that’s why votes shouldn’t be accepted after it.
A decision on that is expected to come within the next month, according to Wren Orey, who directs the elections project at the Bipartisan Policy Center. The Washington D.C.-based think tank works with both sides of the political aisle to craft policy suggestions.
Orey told LAist it’s looking like the justices will side with the RNC and overturn Mississippi’s law. However, it’s not known how broad the ruling could be. The Purcell principle, a legal doctrine that discourages last-minute changes to election procedures, could also be invoked.
“ It’s possible that the Supreme Court rules that this specific statute is unconstitutional, but their judgment doesn’t go into effect until after the election,” they said.
Some critics say the Supreme Court has unevenly applied this principle, pointing to how a ruling affected Alabama’s primary when voters had already begun casting ballots.
How it could affect California
Just over 400,000 ballots arrived during California’s grace period in 2024 — that’s 2.5% of voter turnout. Orey said these usually come from areas that take more time for mail carriers to deliver, so it could disadvantage rural residents, for example. It’s unclear if there would be a carve out for service members and overseas voters under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, which get rejected at higher rates.
The Bipartisan Policy Center’s research shows about the same rate of late ballot rejections between states with a grace period and those without, Orey said, suggesting that voters adapt to their state’s deadline.
“What isn’t clear, though, is how long it takes for voters to adjust,” they said, adding that they’ve seen some evidence of rejections going up immediately after a grace period goes away.
Workers count Los Angeles County ballots in the City of Industry on June 3.
(
Kayla Bartkowski
/
Los Angeles Times via Getty Images
)
Skelley said a lot of voters would likely become aware and adjust in part because of how publicized the decision would be, but it wouldn’t solve everything.
“Now, does that mean some would be affected and might miss out on a chance to vote?” he said. “Yes, that’s perfectly plausible.”
California is also notoriously criticized for how long it takes to count ballots, even though that’s a feature, not a bug, of our election process. If the justices decide to end grace periods, don’t expect big changes to that.
That’s mostly because our slowness stems from the volume of mail-in ballots received on Election Day, Orey said. Those need to be verified, opened and flattened to be processed, which takes more time than if you voted in person.
This is happening in the name of preventing noncitizens from voting, which is already rare and gets prosecuted.
USPS released its proposed rules earlier this month. Under the proposal, states would be required to send names of eligible mail-in voters to USPS, who would add them to a centralized list. If your name isn’t on that list for some reason, the Postal Service won’t mail your ballot.
Chime on in USPS’s proposed rule
The U.S. Postal Service has released its proposed rule to implement Trump’s executive order. USPS is accepting public comment through July 2.
To send written comments, mail it to: Director, Product Classification, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L’Enfant Plaza SW, Room 4446, Washington, DC 20260-5015.
To email comments, send it to PCFederalRegister@usps.gov, with “Ballot Mail” as the subject line. Make sure to include your name and address.
This also depends on whether states agree to share voter information with the federal government, which California has so far refused to do in other situations.
“ Let’s say California and some states like it don’t give the federal government the information that they want,” Skelley said. “Presumably, that would mean that some people who have been voting by mail would not be able to get their mail ballots, and so they would have to figure out alternate ways to vote.”
Under federal law, states and Congress can determine how elections are run, so Trump’s executive order is seen by some as unconstitutional. It’s being challenged in court inmultiplecases — one of which California is part of.
Among the concerns, it’s unclear what recourse voters would have to resolve errors, how accurate the data will be and what would happen if a voter requested a mail-in ballot after USPS’s deadline to add voters to the list.
The U.S. Postal Service may soon decide who to send mail-in ballots to.
(
Nathan Howard
/
Getty Images
)
Orey said they have talked to state election officials who don’t have a lot of trust in the Postal Service to handle ingesting and updating lists from every state, based on how the agency manages current operations and deadlines.
“We have no evidence to indicate that the infrastructure exists to begin with, or is at all functional,” they said.
Under Trump’s executive order, the final rule is due by the end of July — that is, of course, if it’s not delayed by the courts.
These rules would apply to federal elections, but not to primaries or ballots under the UOCAVA (the act for service members and overseas voters), according to the proposal. If you want to have your say, USPS is accepting public comment through July 2.
Julia Barajas
is following how the World Cup is taking shape in communities across Southern California. She grew up playing soccer with her neighbors in South Gate and is rooting for Mexico.
Published June 19, 2026 5:00 AM
In MacArthur Park, some students decorated their pieces with flags from their parents' native countries.
(
Julia Barajas
/
LAist
)
Topline:
To commemorate the city’s participation in the 2026 men’s World Cup, the L.A. Department of Recreation and Parks has commissioned a local artist to create a piece with the help of young soccer fans. Now through mid-July, artist-in-residence Liseth Amaya is collecting at least 1,000 wooden hexagons, decorated by youths at parks throughout the city.
Why hexagons? Soccer balls are typically made up of black pentagons and white hexagons, Amaya noted. For this project, the hexagons will be covered in art. Ultimately, they will be part of a large-scale installation at City Hall.
Details on the party: The city is putting on dozens of free "Kick It In The Park" World Cup watch parties. The series takes place across 18 park sites, including MacArthur Park, Northridge Recreation Center, Echo Park Lake and more. Amaya will host free workshops at these events.
Read on... for details on how to join the project.
To commemorate the city’s participation in the 2026 men’s World Cup, the L.A. Department of Recreation and Parks has commissioned a local artist to create a piece with the help of young soccer fans. Now through mid-July, artist-in-residence Liseth Amaya is collecting at least 1,000 wooden hexagons, decorated by youths at parks throughout the city.
Soccer balls, she noted, are typically made up of black pentagons and white hexagons. For this project, however, the hexagons will be covered in art. Ultimately, they will be part of a large-scale installation at City Hall.
Amaya, the daughter of Salvadoran immigrants, is an L.A. native who earned her degree at Central Saint Martins college of art in London. To gather the hexagons, she will be hosting workshops across the city.
“In school, art education often takes a backseat to other subjects,” Amaya lamented. “I want to make sure I can run workshops where kids can use different material and learn about what it is to create art with their hands, not just on an iPad.”
In addition to the installation, Liseth Amaya will paint murals inspired by L.A.'s participation in the World Cup.
(
Julia Barajas
/
LAist
)
Watch parties and art
At MacArthur Park in L.A.’s historic Westlake neighborhood this week, Amaya hosted a workshop during one of the city’s “Kick It In The Park” World Cup watch parties. There, she guided students on break from school, encouraging them to think about their background, their neighborhood and anything that brings them joy. Then, she asked them to use the paint markers she provided to bring those images and feelings to life.
Some students filled the hexagons with the flags of Guatemala, El Salvador and Mexico, in honor of their parents. Some painted placid lakes underneath bright blue skies. Others decorated their pieces with small things they love: an iced matcha, a slice of watermelon, their favorite animal.
One student named Daniella added a label to her piece: “I am 11 years old,” it read. “The re[a]son I play soccer is because I [want] to be like my dad[,] and I want to become a soccer player.”
To join the project, Angelenos solely need to gather at Amaya’s work station at “Kick It In The Park” events. All materials are provided at no cost.
All materials are provided at no cost.
At the end of each workshop, students have the choice of taking the piece home with them or donating it to Amaya for the art installation.
The artist has been heartened to find that collecting 1,000 hexagons will be a challenge. After poring over their work, many students have opted not to let them go.
The series takes place across 18 park sites, including MacArthur Park, Northridge Recreation Center, Echo Park Lake and more.
The party ends July 19.
Keep up with LAist.
If you're enjoying this article, you'll love our daily newsletter, The LA Report. Each weekday, catch up on the 5 most pressing stories to start your morning in 3 minutes or less.
The USA team celebrating during their game against Colombia in the first stage of the 1994 World Cup Finals.
(
Shaun Botterill
/
Getty Images
)
Topline:
Soccer wasn’t always a popular sport in the U.S. At an LAist-hosted documentary screening and talkback, attendees witnessed how the 1994 World Cup changed the trajectory of U.S. soccer forever.
What was the event? Summer of ’94 chronicles how soccer rose to popularity in 1994, the first time the U.S. hosted the World Cup. The talkback, moderated by LAist’s Libby Rainey, featured Alan Rothberg, the president of U.S. Soccer in the 1990s, and Chris Leggett and Amanda Farrand, both producers of the film.
Why now? Since that World Cup, public interest in soccer has only increased. The producers said that the film aims to increase interest in volunteer coaching ahead of this year's World Cup and the U.S.’s 250th anniversary of independence.
Where can I watch the documentary? You can stream Summer of ’94 on Fox One.
The sport’s rise to popularity began when the U.S. hosted its first World Cup in 1994. At that time, the men’s soccer team was virtually unknown.
Summer of ’94, a new documentary directed by Chad N. Walker and Dave LaMattina, chronicles the U.S. team’s unlikely run during their first home World Cup.
At a screening in LAist’s Crawford Family Forum Room, viewers got an early look at the film. LAist’s Libby Rainey later moderated a talkback with Alan Rothberg, the president of U.S. Soccer in the 1990s, and Chris Leggett and Amanda Farrand, both producers of the film.
LAist's Libby Rainey moderates a talkback with Alan Rothberg, Chris Leggett, and Amanda Farrand.
(
James Van Evers
/
LAist
)
An unlikely team and a wild-card coach
Rothberg recalled several of the team’s challenges, and also pointed to soccer’s low popularity as a spectator and player sport at the time of the World Cup.
He said that factored into his decision when choosing a wild-card coach, Velibor “Bora” Milutinović, to lead the 1994 team.
The Starting IX for the United States before a 1994 FIFA World Cup Round of 16 game between the United States and Brazil at Stanford Stadium in Palo Alto on July 4, 1994.
(
J.Brett Whitesell
/
Getty Images
)
Ernie Stewart celebrates with his team after the US scores the second goal during the USA match against Colombia in the 1994 World Cup.
(
Stephen Dunn
/
Getty Images
)
Rothberg said “there was a lot of pressure to hire an American coach” for the home team. But he said he “felt there was a necessity to have a coach with international experience.”
Milutinović also emerged as a centerpiece of the documentary, which the producers said they didn’t expect.
“We just started falling in love with Bora, and after one interview with him, where he started [...] coaching the directors, we were like, this guy is magic,” Farrand said.
Leggett said that players were able to better understand Milutinović’s strategy through the documentary. He said that during the interview process, “what was very obvious was [the players] were really digesting and getting to understand Bora as well.”
Rothberg said that since that World Cup, funding for U.S. soccer took off. The team’s performance, “enabled us to immediately follow up and create Major League Soccer,” he said.
At that time, the organization had a $50 million surplus, which Rothberg said they used to create a nonprofit for “underserved communities.”
In 1999, the U.S. hosted the Women’s World Cup in major stadiums.
Libby Rainey (L) and Alan Rothberg (R) speak at a screening in LAist’s Crawford Family Forum.
(
James Van Evers
/
LAist
)
“[FIFA] had so little confidence in the women's game at that time that they wanted us to play in small stadiums in the Northeast, and we persuaded them,” Rothberg recalled.
Now, Major League Soccer has invested over $11 billion in facilities and stadiums, and the U.S. is hosting the World Cup this summer, including eight matches in L.A.
Rothberg said that since that World Cup, public interest in soccer has only increased. Now, we might even be underselling how popular the sport is.
“Soccer has been underestimated to this day. It's still the number one participant sport in the country,” he said.
Farrand said the film sought to inspire not just future players, but also volunteer coaches.
“If we could use this moment and this movie to inspire former players and parents to lean into coaching, we could really make a difference,” she said.
She added that volunteer coaching is “an act of civic participation,” which she encouraged attendees to consider ahead of the U.S.’s 250th anniversary of independence.
Both Rothberg and Farrand pointed to the Women’s World Cup, which will be hosted by the U.S. in 2031, as the next landmark event.
You can find where to stream on the documentary's website.
Jorge Sanchez (left) of Mexico and Young-Woo Seol of Korea Republic compete for the ball during a match won 1-0 by Mexico on Thursday.
(
Carl Recine
/
Getty Images
)
Topline:
Mexico took advantage of a defensive blunder by South Korea to win 1-0 tonight in Guadalajara to become the first team to advance to the knockout stage of the World Cup.
Why it matters: It marks a major triumph for a team that failed to get out of the group stage in 2022 and now has won twice on home soil in front of jubilant crowds.
How it went down: Luis Romo scored in the 50th minute after South Korea goalkeeper Kim Seung-gyu collided with defender Lee Gi-hyuk and dropped the ball inside the area. Romo easily found the open net after picking up the loose ball.
GUADALAJARA, Mexico — Mexico took advantage of a defensive blunder by South Korea to win 1-0 and become the first team to advance to the knockout stage of the World Cup on Thursday.
It marks a major triumph for a team that failed to get out of the group stage in 2022 and now has won twice on home soil in front of jubilant crowds.
Luis Romo scored in the 50th minute after South Korea goalkeeper Kim Seung-gyu collided with defender Lee Gi-hyuk and dropped the ball inside the area. Romo easily found the open net after picking up the loose ball.
The South Koreans nearly equalized in the 87th minute when Mexico goalkeeper Raúl Rangel stopped a header from close range by Cho Gue-sung, then made an even better save on the rebound, extending his right arm to keep the ball from crossing the line.
Mexico has six points from two Group A matches, three more than South Korea and five more than the Czech Republic and South Africa, who drew 1-1 earlier Thursday in Atlanta.
The top two teams from each group move on to the knockout stage, along with the best eight third-place teams. A round of 32 is being played for the first time at the World Cup after the tournament was expanded to 48 teams.
