The Brief

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down California’s first-in-the-nation law requiring background checks for ammunition purchases, another blow to the state’s gun control framework that has been pared down, case by case, since the U.S. Supreme Court dramatically expanded gun rights in a monumental 2022 decision.

The California law that forced ammunition purchasers to pass a background check was passed by voters in 2016. Gov. Gavin Newsom, at the time the state’s lieutenant governor, championed the initiative and was its primary advocate.

In 2018, before the law went into effect, a group of gun rights advocates and ammunition vendors sued to block the law.

They were successful — in 2020, a federal district court judge handed down an injunction against the background checks of ammunition purchasers. But at the time, the 9th Circuit paused that order and allowed the law to take effect.

Two years later, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen that a New York concealed-carry law unfairly constrained people’s right to carry a gun, and California’s gun control regime was thrown into chaos.

The 9th Circuit then sent the case on background checks for ammunition purchases back down to the federal district court. That court again ruled against the background checks.

Today’s ruling helped clarify what a post-Bruen future could look like.

“Given the fees and delays associated with California’s ammunition background check regime, and the wide range of transactions to which it applies, we conclude that, in all applications, the regime meaningfully constrains California residents’ right to keep and bear arms,” Justice Sandra Segal Ikuta wrote in the 2-1 majority opinion.

The law required face-to-face transactions from a licensed dealer. That effectively banned internet sales of ammunition, and any ammunition purchased out of state required that it be delivered from that state to a licensed dealer in California.

Purchasers would swipe a government ID and their information would be run through four databases, which searched for their criminal histories, any firearm prohibitions for mental health, restraining orders and whether they were on a wanted persons list. They would also have to pay a fee to have their information run through the state Justice Department’s firearms data repository.

The question posed by the Supreme Court in the Bruen decision is whether a law “meaningfully constrains the right to keep and bear arms,” as specified in the Second Amendment, and whether it is consistent with the country’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

Using that test, the 9th Circuit previously agreed with California that an Alameda County zoning law prohibiting gun stores within 500 feet of a residential area, or a law that bans firearm sales on state property, are both constitutional. The reasoning behind those decisions was that people could still buy guns in Alameda County, or somewhere besides state property.

The Rhodes case is different, the appellate court ruled, because it meaningfully constrains people’s ability to purchase ammunition, which previous 9th Circuit decisions have found is foundational to a person’s ability to own guns.

In court, the state’s attorneys also proposed that California’s ammunition sales law conformed to the United States’ historical tradition of regulating guns, citing colonial-era laws or laws written after the Civil War.

The court dismissed those arguments.

“Because none of the historical analogues proffered by California is within the relevant time frame, or is relevantly similar to California’s ammunition background check regime, California’s ammunition background check regime does not survive scrutiny under the two-step Bruen analysis,” Ikuta wrote.

In a fiery dissent, Judge Jay Bybee said the decision failed to correctly apply the Bruen test, and that using the logic of the decision, any firearms regulation could be interpreted as a violation of the Second Amendment.

“It is difficult to imagine a regulation on the acquisition of ammunition or firearms that would not ‘meaningfully constrain’ the right to keep and bear arms under the majority’s new general applicability standard,” Bybee wrote in the dissent.

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

A California appeals court on Monday overturned a sex abuse conviction against a former University of California, Los Angeles, gynecologist and ordered the case to be retried.

A three-justice panel from California's 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled Dr. James Heaps was denied a fair trial because the judge did not share with his defense counsel a note by the court's foreman pointing out concerns that one juror lacked sufficient English to carry out their duties.

Heaps' attorney, Leonard Levine, said he and his team were not aware of the note or that there was any question about a juror's ability to serve until two years later when an attorney working on an appeal discovered it in a court file.

If the attorney had not seen it, "it still would have remained a secret, which is very unfortunate since it would have been a miscarriage of justice, but thankfully it's been corrected," Levine said.

Heaps was sentenced in 2023 to 11 years in prison after his conviction on charges he sexually abused female patients.

"Justice is slow but it's finally been done," he said, adding "I believe it's just a matter of time before he is totally exonerated."

Heaps was accused of sexually assaulting hundreds of patients during his 35-year career and UCLA made nearly $700 million in payouts over lawsuits connected to the allegations — a record amount at the time for a public university.

He pleaded not guilty to 21 felony counts in the sexual assaults of seven women between 2009 and 2018. He was convicted in October 2022 of three counts of sexual battery by fraud and two counts of sexual penetration of two patients. The jury found him not guilty of seven of the 21 counts and was deadlocked on the remaining charges.

In the 31-page ruling, the appellate court panel pointed out that within about one hour of Juror No. 15 being seated as a substitute for a juror who had a medical issue, concerns were raised about whether the person was qualified to serve. The foreman's note indicated that Juror No. 15 did not speak English well enough to participate in the deliberations, the ruling stated.

Prosecutors have 30 days to appeal the ruling. The Los Angeles County District Attorney's office said in an email to The Associated Press that it plans to retry Heaps as soon as possible.

The panel stated that the problem was too grave to not order a retrial.

"We recognize the burden on the trial court and regrettably, on the witnesses, in requiring retrial of a case involving multiple victims and delving into the conduct of intimate medical examinations," the ruling stated. "The importance of the constitutional right to counsel at critical junctures in a criminal trial gives us no other choice."
Copyright 2026 NPR

A key document laying out how Olympics organizers will address human rights issues like civil rights, homelessness and human trafficking in the summer of 2028 has not been made public, despite a Dec. 31, 2025, deadline.

Talk of a boycott, fear about ICE agents, and concern about L.A.'s unhoused population have been swirling around preparations for the Olympic Games for months. But last week, some L.A. City Council members said at a committee meeting that they had not seen the report. Neither have local human rights advocates.

" It's just the lack of transparency," said Stephanie Richard, who leads an anti-trafficking initiative at Loyola Law School. "Why wouldn't the reports have been put out the day that they were provided?"

LA28, the private nonprofit putting on the Games, is responsible for creating a "Human Rights Strategy" in consultation with the city, according to a contract with Los Angeles. It was supposed to be completed by the end of 2025.

Spokespeople for LA28 say it has fulfilled its "obligation to the city" and that the organization is working with L.A. on next steps. When asked by LAist, city officials did not disclose who had seen the human rights document or what those next steps were.

Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson sets the agenda for the ad-hoc city council committee on the Olympic Games. But his office didn't respond to requests for comment on if he had seen the report. The mayor's office also did not return repeated requests for comment on who at the city has the Human Rights Strategy.

While advocates wait to see the report, some are concerned about what will be in it.

Richard with Loyola Law School said she participated in a call with LA28 to advise on the human rights strategy, but she was disheartened when there was no follow-up conversation.

" It feels like the human rights plans have always been very like big picture and nothing concrete," she said.

Richard also has her eye on the upcoming World Cup, which requires a human rights plan, too. She told LAist she wants to see LA28 and FIFA put money behind these efforts. She compiled her own report with a long list of suggestions ahead of the World Cup and Olympics, including the demand that both organizations negotiate with the federal government to ensure immigration enforcement doesn't conduct raids around sporting venues.

Catherine Sweetser, who directs a human rights litigation clinic at UCLA Law, has been researching the organizing committee's process in putting together its human rights strategy.

Sweetser said LA28 had not called public meetings about its approach to issues like homelessness, and had not to her knowledge engaged people who might be directly affected by the Olympic Games, like people living on the streets of Los Angeles.

"The only way that we're going to get real solutions is to listen to the people who are affected," she said. "And right now I don't see that happening with this human rights process."

LAist has also requested an interview LA28's senior human rights advisor, Julieta Valls Noyes.

A mid-week warming trend kicks off Tuesday, with temperatures expected to reach the low 90s in some valleys.

SoCal beaches will see temperatures from 73 to 79 degrees, with periods of low clouds in the morning. The inland coast and downtown L.A. will see highs of between 82 and 85 degrees.

The valley communities, including the Inland Empire, will see highs of up to 86 degrees, and up to 89 degrees in Coachella Valley. Meanwhile, the Antelope Valley could get up to 75 degrees.

The National Weather Service is also warning of windy conditions over the Santa Clarita Valley, where gusts could reach 35 mph in the afternoon.

The 2028 Olympic soccer final matches will take place at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, but earlier games will be played at stadiums across the U.S.

Those locations were announced Tuesday by the Olympics organizers. Stadiums in San Diego and San Jose in California will host Olympic soccer matches. So will New York City, Columbus, Nashville and St. Louis.

The venues outside of the L.A.-area will host group stage and knock-out matches in the Olympic tournament ahead of the final stage matches in Pasadena. The Games will allow fans from around the country to view Olympic competitions.

The additional stadiums where Olympic soccer matches will take place are:

• Etihad Park in New York City
• ScottsMiracle-Gro Field in Columbus, Ohio
• GEODIS Park in Nashville, Tennessee 
• Energizer Park in St. Louis, Missouri 
• PayPal Park in San Jose
• Snapdragon Stadium in San Diego

LA28 said in a news release that organizers "intentionally designed the tournament to include stadiums from the East Coast to West Coast to minimize travel demands."

Dates and locations for the women's and men's tournaments will be announced before ticket sales start in April.