Sponsored message
Logged in as
Audience-funded nonprofit news
radio tower icon laist logo
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
Subscribe
  • Listen Now Playing Listen

The Brief

The most important stories for you to know today
  • We break down the process and costs
    NPR spoke to immigration experts and lawyers and reviewed government documents to break down the steps of the U.S. deportation process and its cost.
    NPR spoke to immigration experts and lawyers and reviewed government documents to break down the steps of the U.S. deportation process and its cost.

    Topline:

    Here's how immigration experts and lawyers who reviewed government documents break down the steps and associated costs of the U.S. deportation process.

    Why now: President Trump kicked off his second term vowing to deport a record number of people from the U.S. But deportation is typically a cumbersome process generally involving an arrest, detention, a removal order from a judge and finally a flight out of the U.S. and can take months or years.

    What's next: Trump has taken steps to change how law enforcement officials track, find, detain and remove those in the country without legal status. He's also broadened the categories of people eligible for deportation.

    Keep reading... for details on each step of the process.

    President Trump kicked off his second term vowing to deport a record number of people from the U.S. But deportation — a cumbersome process generally involving an arrest, detention, a removal order from a judge and finally a flight out of the U.S. — can take months or years.

    "Each of those pieces can be extremely difficult and complicated depending on where someone is, who they are, what types of protection claims they might have, what types of resources the U.S. government has," said Kathleen Bush-Joseph, lawyer and policy analyst with the U.S. Immigration Policy Program at the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank.

    Much like his predecessors, Trump has taken steps to change how law enforcement officials track, find, detain and remove those in the country without legal status. He's also broadened the categories of people eligible for deportation.

    "The sands are shifting underneath our feet," said Eric Welsh, partner at Reeves Immigration Law Group in Los Angeles, which represents individuals and businesses on issues related to immigration status and visas.

    NPR spoke to immigration experts and lawyers and reviewed government documents to break down the steps of the U.S. deportation process and its cost. This is meant as a general breakdown of the process and not a rule for each individual's circumstances. 


    Step 1: Identifying who is removable

    In March, Immigration and Customs Enforcement told reporters it had arrested 32,000 people since Trump took office. 

    Those at risk for arrest include people without legal status because they may have entered the country illegally, overstayed a work or student visa, or violated the terms of their green card, including by committing a crime.

    But immigration law experts add that federal law officials do not have to prove someone committed a crime to deport them — as recent examples of revoked student visas show.

    Trump's latest moves include ending programs that granted legal status to migrants from certain countries. The administration said it would not renew Haitians and Venezuelans' Temporary Protected Status, a program that grants citizens of certain countries permission to live and work in the U.S. The White House also said it would end a Biden-era humanitarian program that granted two-year permits to live and work in the U.S. to Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans who had fiscal sponsors in the United States.

    There is pending litigation that has paused plans to end the protections, but if they lapse, once-eligible people who remain in the U.S. would be in the country without legal status and thus eligible for deportation.

    Former President Joe Biden had a focus on border-region enforcement as the number of border encounters increased during his tenure. This second Trump administration has seen a low in border encounters compared to last year and has pivoted its enforcement to the interior of the country.


    Step 2: Arrests

    Those at risk for arrests include people without legal status because they may have entered the country illegally, overstayed a work or student visa, or violated the terms of their green card, including by committing a crime.
    Those at risk for arrests include people without legal status because they may have entered the country illegally, overstayed a work or student visa, or violated the terms of their green card, including by committing a crime.
    (
    Ana Galvañ for NPR
    )

    Since taking office, Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem have tapped law enforcement in other federal agencies to assist with arrests to meet an aggressive quota pushed by Trump's officials.


    In January, ICE officers were assigned a quota of 75 arrests per day for each of the 20 field offices.

    The FBI, U.S. Marshals Service and Drug Enforcement Administration are now assisting in investigations and arrests. But those "at-large arrests" — done directly by federal agents — have constituted a minority of all ICE arrests in most years, according to the Migration Policy Institute; they were just 29% of all arrests in fiscal year 2024. Typically, most arrests come from local law enforcement.

    Often, that involves the Criminal Alien Program, which takes people who are in local jails and prisons and transfers them to ICE custody, and a provision known as 287(g), which allows local police and jails to conduct limited immigration law enforcement.

    Immigration detention can come at any point from arrest to a final decision in court. The cost can range and DHS also uses government contracts with private prison operators to expand available space. One recent contract is estimated to generate $180 million in annual revenue for CoreCivic. Alternatives to detention, such as ankle monitors and regular check-ins with ICE, can also be used.

    Immigration lawyers explain that sometimes immigrants may ignore a notice to appear, or miss the notice altogether due to filing glitches. But a failure to appear results in a final order of removal.

    Trump has also sought to skip the court process, relying on programs like "expedited removal," which allows anyone in the country for under two years without legal status to be deported quickly, and the "Alien Enemies Act," which the government has claimed allows it to deport people it deems members of Venezuelan gangs without due process, an assertion under intense legal scrutiny in federal courts.


    Step 3: Immigration court system

    A person is required to appear in court for a judge to decide whether they are removable.
    A person is required to appear in court for a judge to decide whether they are removable.
    (
    Ana Galvañ for NPR
    )

    Immigration law decisions, including whether someone gets a final removal order, fall under the Executive Office for Immigration Review within the Justice Department. That office had more than 4 million pending cases in the last quarter of 2024.


    "People referred to the immigration courts might end up waiting years before they have a hearing determining their case," said Bush-Joseph, from the Migration Policy Institute. "And when someone files for asylum, those cases can actually take even longer because of the complex nature of the claims."

    If a person is found to be removable by a judge, a judge may find them "removable as charged," which is not a final order of removal but kicks off the rest of the process. The person does not lose their status at this point, if they have it.

    "It's just like any other form of litigation. You can say 'I deny that' and the government has to prove that you are removable," said John Conrace, an immigration attorney in Mississippi. "People who get orders of removal, those are often generated because they are afraid to go to their initial hearing."

    If they appear in court, people have the right to ask for time to seek legal representation, though most people don't have lawyers.

    Immigration lawyers say they often look for two numbers to prepare for the next step: if the person has been here for less than one year or more than 10. Less than one year allows a person to potentially claim asylum. More than 10 can stave off final removal if people can prove there is a relative who will suffer extreme hardship if the person is deported, or if they have a U.S. citizen spouse or children. But this is hard to win — and never grants a pathway to legal status.

    Those in the country between one and 10 years can try to withhold removal based on other claims, such as risk of persecution or humanitarian relief.

    The case of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia is a good example: the El Salvador immigrant was able to stave off deportation by arguing, in part, that it was more likely than not that he would be persecuted by gangs in El Salvador. The government later said it deported him by mistake, prompting a lawsuit and a judge's order to bring him back.


    Step 4: Removal

    If a person's claims to stave off deportation fail, the judge issues a final order of removal.
    If a person's claims to stave off deportation fail, the judge issues a final order of removal.
    (
    Ana Galvañ for NPR
    )

    If people's claims to stave off deportation fail, the judge issues a final order of removal. That's also appealable. People can also choose to "voluntarily depart," which is not a formal deportation and does not reflect on a person's future immigration record.


    Appeals of removal are filed with the DOJ's Board of Immigration Appeals and could reach circuit courts and then the Supreme Court.

    "That takes a wildly varied amount of time. If you are not detained and you are free, it could be years before the BIA gets to resolving the issue that was appealed," Conrace said, adding that it is not common for cases to make it up to the highest court.

    In fiscal year 2024, immigration courts issued 666,177 initial case decisions, with a plurality being removal orders.

    As of the last quarter of 2024, there were 1.5 million pending asylum cases in immigration court and 1 million with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

    "The current pace of work means that it would take a lot more resources, a lot more immigration judges and asylum officers, to be trying to work through these applications at a faster pace than is currently happening," Bush-Joseph said.

    About 1.4 million people have pending deportation orders, according to ICE, but there are challenges to sending many back to their home countries. One reason is that their home countries have not agreed to accept them.

    The Biden administration carried out deportations to 192 countries in the last fiscal year — nearly every country in the world. The Trump administration is aiming to make inroads with others to be "third-party countries" that can take in deportees.

    Estimates on total cost to deport one person vary depending on where someone is apprehended, how long they are in detention and the length of their legal battle. DHS' budget for ICE is $8 billion, the Customs and Border Protection budget is $20 billion and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services budget, which is covered by the fees people pay to apply for citizenship and other benefits, is $865 million. Not all this money goes to immigration law enforcement.

    "Overall, the U.S. immigration system remains extremely overwhelmed, under-resourced and outdated," Bush-Joseph said. "It's going to take congressional action to really update and reform the system and bring it into the 21st century to meet modern migration challenges."

    That reform, though, has proved a challenge — decades of reform efforts have died in Congress. A promising bipartisan effort came together early last year after months of careful negotiation, but fell apart less than a day after it was made public — as then-candidate Trump pressured Republicans to oppose the deal in order to keep border security alive as an issue in the presidential election.

    Now, the administration is hoping that Congress can provide $175 billion for border security in the budget reconciliation process later this year.

    Copyright 2025 NPR

  • How candidates say they would tackle homelessness
    Two women, one with light-brown skin tone and one with brown skin tone, speak into microphones side by side on a panel, both mid-gesture.
    L.A. Mayor Karen Bass and Councilmember Nithya Raman appear separately at a mayoral forum held Sept. 3, 2026, in downtown Los Angeles.

    Topline:

    Incumbent Karen Bass and challenger Nithya Raman laid out competing plans for fixing L.A.'s homelessness crisis at separate mayoral candidate forums this week ahead of the Nov. 3 election.

    Why it matters: More than 29,000 people sleep outside in the city, a nearly 8% jump from last year. The two candidates are both promising to solve L.A.'s homelessness crisis, but they have slightly different approaches. Voters decide between the two on Nov. 3.

    Breaking from LAHSA: Both candidates now support the city eventually leaving LAHSA, the joint city-county homelessness authority. Bass wants to move now, proposing an independent system within about two years. "The county filed for divorce. Now we file, too," Bass said.

    The Inside Safe fight: Bass's signature program, which moves people from encampments into motels, is the sharpest divide. Raman calls it too costly — and wants cheaper rental subsidies instead.

    More than 29,000 people sleep outside in L.A., according to official estimates — a nearly 8% increase over last year.

    Two candidates for mayor are promising to change that, but they have different ideas about how.

    Incumbent Mayor Karen Bass and Councilmember Nithya Raman appeared separately at homelessness forums hosted this week by Hope The Mission, a large homeless shelter operator.

    The events were held amid a national spotlight on L.A.’s homelessness crisis.

    This week, a congressional subcommittee held a hearing on allegations of fraud and mismanagement of homelessness funds — a hearing in which Bass declined to appear. The next day, federal authorities announced charges against three employees at L.A. homelessness nonprofits in a widening federal investigation of homeless services fraud.

    Bass cited L.A.’s homelessness crisis as the reason she sought the city’s top job in 2022.

    “I ran because I am always compelled to go toward a crisis,” she said Thursday.

    She has made clearing homeless encampments and moving people indoors a top priority as mayor, but fell far short of her pledge to end street homelessness by 2026.

    Raman has said founding a local homelessness nonprofit inspired her 2020 L.A. City Council run. For years, Raman was chair of the council committee focused on city homelessness policy.

    Both candidates have played major roles in shaping L.A.’s homelessness response in recent years, and they told forum moderators this week that the city’s approach has been dysfunctional.

    L.A.’s next mayor will face a barrage of challenges related to homelessness.

    Here’s how the candidates said they would handle some of the big ones:

    How will they deal with the Trump administration?

    The Trump administration has been cracking down on the L.A. region’s administration of homeless services to root out potential financial mismanagement, but also to challenge the local policy approach to homelessness and impose policies it prefers.

    Federal officials argue that approaches known as “housing first” and “harm reduction” are failing. They favor treatment and enforcement instead.

    Bass, a Democrat, skipped a House subcommittee hearing on federal homelessness spending Tuesday, dismissing it as politically motivated.

    “ I'm the mayor of the second-largest city in the country, and I don't have time for foolishness,” Bass said Thursday. “And remember, I know these people. It's a dog and pony show to see who's gonna get on Fox that night. I was not going to subject myself to that, and I was not going to subject our city to that.”

    Bass said her office is cooperating fully by supplying thousands of pages of documents.

    Raman said L.A. should be using the courts much more aggressively to challenge federal overreach and protect funding.

    “ We've done that less than I would've liked here in Los Angeles, but other cities have done that and actually kept their federal dollars in place despite the best efforts of the Trump administration.”

    She said the city also has to make sure that funding is spent effectively, arguing L.A. currently has no single person tracking every dollar coming in from the federal government, state government and other sources.

    “That is wrong,” Raman said at a forum on Wednesday. “If I am mayor — when I am mayor — I will ensure that every single dollar that is being given to us is being used to get as many people indoors into safety and to keep them there as effectively as possible.”

    What to do about LAHSA?

    Both candidates have said they support the city eventually breaking away from LAHSA, the joint city-county homelessness authority.

    "The county filed for divorce. Now we file, too," Bass said on Thursday.

    Last year, L.A. County officials voted to remove more than $300 million in annual homelessness funding from LAHSA’s control and to manage those funds itself with a new county department. Bass is now proposing the city create its own, independent “continuum of care,” a process she said could take “a couple of years.”

    Bass, who appointed herself to serve on LAHSA’s governing board before stepping down this month, said she’s learned in recent years “how profoundly dysfunctional” the regional homeless services system is.

    She argued that because L.A. represents 40% of the county's population and is the epicenter of the crisis, the city must have more control over the system.

    “You might remember that expression I started with: locked arms,” Bass said. “And we locked arms as long as we could.”

    Raman, in her mayoral platform, also called for the city to prepare to move hundreds of millions of dollars in homelessness contracts away from LAHSA, which she described as "plagued with scandal." But she said the city has to build the capacity to take on the job first.

    At Thursday's forum, Raman didn't mention LAHSA by name, instead describing coordination failures between agencies — citing permanent supportive housing units that sat empty for more than a year because departments weren't talking to each other.

    As chair of the council's Homelessness Committee, Raman said she created the city's Bureau of Homelessness Oversight to track spending and outcomes, but accused Bass of failing to staff it promptly.

    “The mayor did not hire people to staff up that oversight body quickly enough,” Raman said.

    LAHSA has served as the lead agency managing homelessness services for the region since 1993, including conducting a yearly homeless count, preparing regional applications for federal funds and managing key databases.

    This week, the agency announced it would soon forfeit those roles and allow other agencies or organizations to apply for them instead — including other county or city of L.A. agencies.

    What about encampments?

    The candidates are also somewhat split on their approach to homelessness encampments. Bass has criticized Raman for voting several times since 2022 against expanding the city’s anti-camping ordinance, which restricts camping in certain public spaces including schools and day cares.

    Raman has defended her votes. She argued the law, at best, “would have moved an encampment from one block to the next block.”

    “To me, that is not good enough," Raman said. "My imagination for how we address homelessness in L.A. goes beyond just thinking about which block an encampment should be on. It is about how we actually get encampments indoors."

    Asked about enforcement approaches, Bass pointed to physical barriers — like cement planters that replaced a major encampment on San Vicente Boulevard — as a more effective deterrent than ticketing or arrests.

    “ So sometimes using physical barriers work, but what we have not done is just gone in and arrested homeless people,” Bass said. “That has never happened.”

    The sharpest divide between the candidates centers on Bass’ signature program, Inside Safe, which moves people from encampments into motels and interim housing.

    Raman said she agreed with the underlying concept — going out to encampments and offering shelter — but that the program is too costly and hasn't evolved since Bass launched it in 2022.

    “Her program has not changed or learned or adapted from the lessons that they should have had in place, and to me, that is a major, major issue,” Raman said.

    Raman put the cost at roughly $100,000 per person, per year — "not a fiscally sustainable approach to a crisis that is growing in our city," she said — and favors time-limited subsidies, short-term rental vouchers that cost a third as much.

    Bass called that framing "fundamentally dishonest," arguing the county reimburses the city for some of the up-front cost.

    Bass said she wants to bring costs down by building permanent structures on public land instead of renting motel rooms.

    She said she favors moving groups of unhoused people together and bringing services to them, which she said is harder to do with the housing vouchers Raman wants to rely on.

    "I would house 30 people at a time, not one by one,” Bass said. "I see it from a people's point of view. She sees it from a numbers point of view. Both are needed."

    The general election is Nov. 3.

  • Sponsored message
  • Hidden in plain sight in a business park
    A pair of light skinned hands with several tattoos spoons a brown liquid over a series of white plates which each hold a piece of beef.
    The Darkroom burger, dry-aged beef, and swimming in a light au poivre bath.

    Topline:

    Chef-owner Zach Scherer's Darkroom sits in an unmarked business park on the Costa Mesa/Santa Ana border — a deliberate choice that's turned the restaurant into a word-of-mouth destination rather than a drive-by discovery.

    Tell me more: The menu changes constantly, tracking real-time seasonal shifts — this visit caught the tail end of summer's Jimmy Nardello peppers giving way to fall's first honeynut squash. Scherer runs the kitchen with longtime partner Drew Adams, and the two also operate Chrysalis, a tasting-menu concept sharing the same space some nights.

    Why is it important? Most diners expect flashy fine dining to come with flashy real estate. Scherer, aiming to make Orange County "nationally competitive" with cities like San Francisco and Chicago, is proving serious technique doesn't need a serious address — or a serious attitude.

    Step into the darkness: Scherer's next concept, Three Eyed Tiger, is currently in development nearby.

    Just off the 405 freeway at the border of Costa Mesa and Santa Ana, a block down from IKEA and a couple of business parks over, you'll find Darkroom.

    It's the kind of address where you'd expect to find a dentist's office or a logistics company — instead, it's home to some of the most inventive food in Orange County, and arguably beyond, anchored by a formidable wine program featuring small producers.

    The location is a deliberate choice by Zach Scherer, Darkroom’s chef-owner, that has turned the restaurant into a growing word-of-mouth destination. For Scherer, hiding in plain sight was never a compromise. It was the plan.

    Inside Darkroom

    The interior of the restaurant is a completely different story. Its decor matches that of an angsty teenager who shops at Hot Topic, with an affinity for industrial and goth music, and a bit of new wave mixed in.

    Dimly lit restaurant interior with red-toned lighting, framed artwork including cherubs with graffiti text and a skull painting, and blurred diners at a table in the foreground.
    Darkroom's interior leans into its irreverent, gallery-meets-Hot Topic aesthetic.
    (
    Wales Communications
    /
    Courtesy Darkroom
    )

    Your eyes might take a minute to adjust to the low light before a friendly server wearing a tattered band T-shirt greets you and escorts you to your table.

    Scherer wears his nonconformist attitude with pride — and intention. "If you're a little too serious, Orange County won't love it," he said, and it shows: the room is built to feel like the opposite of a hushed tasting menu.

    Two chefs with tattooed arms plating food together at a restaurant counter — one light-skinned with short brown hair, a beard, glasses, and a purple graphic shirt; the other light-skinned with short bleached-blond hair and a mustache, plating a dish by hand.
    Chef Zach Scherer (right) and Drew Adams work the pass together — the same partnership they describe as "like a band."
    (
    Wales Communications
    /
    Courtesy DARKROOM
    )

    Scherer runs the kitchen with longtime partner Drew Adams — a lifelong Orange County resident — who also oversees the pastry program. The two think of Darkroom's identity "like a band," Scherer said: a shared core sound, no matter who's guesting on a given dish. (Their tasting-menu concept, Chrysalis, runs out of the same kitchen some nights — a five-course tasting menu happening in parallel.)

    The menu

    Start off with the Scotch olives, fried Castelvetrano olives with anchovy and lamb merguez, served over spiced sumac yogurt. Meanwhile, a couple of slices of their zucchini bread with koji butter, topped with silky jamón serrano, provide some comforting bites.

    Charred red Jimmy Nardello peppers topped with dukkah and chives, resting on whipped labneh in a dark oval dish against a teal background.
    Grilled and marinated Jimmy Nardello peppers — a short-season ingredient the kitchen deliberately doesn't overwork.
    (
    Wales Communications
    /
    Courtesy Darkroom
    )

    From there, seasonal produce takes center stage, with grilled, marinated Jimmy Nardello peppers served with fennel-pollen labneh and sprinkled with walnut dukkah, hitting equal notes of sweet, spicy, nutty, and fresh. Followed by honeynut squash from Weiser Farms — poached in a light broth known as nage, made with bits of country ham and horseradish, topped with rainbow chard, a dish that reads Southern-meets-European.

    A dry-aged beef burger sliced in half, served in a light broth on a white plate with a rainbow light reflection across a dark marble table.
    The Darkroom burger, cut in two — only 10 are made a night.
    (
    Wales Communications
    /
    Courtesy Darkroom
    )

    Cap things off with The Darkroom burger, cut in half, made with dry-aged beef, molten Comté cheese, and gooey caramelized onions, served between soft, glossy brioche-style buns, swimming in a light au poivre bath. It's a dish that, like the others, exhibits strong technique but still wears its fun on its sleeve — all the makings of a truly memorable meal.

    The philosophy

    Scherer's goal is to make the Orange County food scene nationally competitive with San Francisco, New York, and Chicago — and the seasonal fluency on display that night, from summer's last Jimmy Nardellos to fall's first honeynut squash, is the technical proof behind that claim.

    Seven golden fried olives arranged in a circle atop a swirl of white sauce, garnished with herbs and spice, on a white plate.
    The fried Scotch olives — Castelvetranos stuffed with anchovy and lamb merguez, set over sumac yogurt.
    (
    Wales Communications
    /
    Courtesy Darkroom
    )

    The menu's dynamic approach — its ability to oscillate between cuisines — reflects that same nonconformist identity, reinforcing the idea that the food doesn't take itself too seriously, just like the space around it.

    Scherer's ambitions don't stop at Darkroom's walls; he's also developing Three Eyed Tiger, a cocktail-forward concept nearby.

    "The food we're making now is the food that I'm the most proud of, because it really shows our identity," said Scherer.

  • Driver who rammed into bus was under the influence
    A heavily damaged SUV sits crushed against the side of an orange Metro bus at night.
    Police and LA Metro investigate the scene of a crash between an SUV and an LA Metro Bus that left two people dead on Tuesday in Chatsworth.

    Topline:

    The driver connected to the tragic bus crash in Chatsworth on Tuesday night is facing two second-degree murder charges, as well as charges for driving under the influence and reckless driving. Bailee Lynn Rios is expected to be arraigned Friday, according to L.A. District Attorney Nathan Hochman.

    What possible punishment is she facing? Hochman announced Thursday that his office was seeking the maximum sentence of life in prison for the 36-year-old driver.

    What else is there? Drugs were found in her system at the time of the crash, Hochman said. His office did not share what kind of drugs.

    Adding to the tragedy, an NBC4 helicopter covering the incident also crashed nearby, killing pilot George Marciniw and reporter Eliana Moreno, as well as a pedestrian, Edy Gutierrez Mejia.

    Rios, who is in custody, could not be immediately reached for comment.

    Background: Rios sped through a red light and plowed her SUV into a Metro bus, killing two passengers, Daniel Castillo and Gage Weida. Five other passengers were injured, according to prosecutors.

  • Judge upholds injunction blocking notification
    A modern gray office building with the Chino Valley Unified School District logo and name displayed above the entrance, featuring a stylized sunrise graphic. An American flag and California state flag fly from a flagpole in front of the building.
    Exterior of Chino Valley Unified School District building

    Topline:

    A San Bernardino County Superior Court judge on Tuesday rejected Chino Valley Unified School District’s request to dissolve an injunction blocking its policy requiring employees to notify parents when students identify as transgender or use different names or pronouns at school.

    More details: Judge Michael Sachs upheld his 2024 injunction blocking Chino Valley Unified from enforcing a policy the school board adopted in 2023. The policy required district employees to notify parents within three days if their student asked to go by a name or pronoun different from official school records or join a sex-segregated program, such as athletics, that did not correspond to those records.

    Why now: The school district had asked Sachs to overturn a permanent injunction after the U.S. Supreme Court issued an emergency docket ruling in a separate case, Mirabelli v. Bonta. The district argued that the ruling affirmed parents’ constitutional right to be informed about information critical to their children’s health and well-being.

    A San Bernardino County Superior Court judge on Tuesday rejected Chino Valley Unified School District’s request to dissolve an injunction blocking its policy requiring employees to notify parents when students identify as transgender or use different names or pronouns at school.

    Judge Michael Sachs upheld his 2024 injunction blocking Chino Valley Unified from enforcing a policy the school board adopted in 2023. The policy required district employees to notify parents within three days if their student asked to go by a name or pronoun different from official school records or join a sex-segregated program, such as athletics, that did not correspond to those records.

    The school district had asked Sachs to overturn a permanent injunction after the U.S. Supreme Court issued an emergency docket ruling in a separate case, Mirabelli v. Bonta. The district argued that the ruling affirmed parents’ constitutional right to be informed about information critical to their children’s health and well-being.

    Sachs rejected the request, saying his injunction does not conflict with the Supreme Court’s ruling. During Tuesday’s hearing, he distinguished between the two cases, saying the school policy at issue in the Mirabelli case required school employees to withhold information from parents when asked.

    “The school’s policy essentially mandated that staff lie to the parent about their child, and the court did not accept that,” Sachs said of Mirabelli v. Bonta.

    The Chino case involves a different question: whether school employees can be required to disclose a child’s gender identity to their parents.

    “There is no mandatory duty for the school district to voluntarily release information about the student,” Sachs said in court.

    Chino Valley Unified was disappointed by the ruling, said Emily Rae, the district’s attorney and president of the California Justice Center, a conservative legal nonprofit focused on protecting individual liberty.

    “The main problem is that it puts the burden on parents to know whether they’re having a secret kept from them,” Rae said.

    Rae said Sachs’ ruling misinterpreted the Mirabelli opinion, which she said made clear that schools should not withhold information from parents. She said it was too soon to say whether the district would appeal the ruling or make changes to any of its policies.

    Sonja Shaw, president of the Chino Valley Unified school board and a candidate for state superintendent of public instruction, also criticized the ruling. In an interview with EdSource, she called the proceedings a “kangaroo court” that has caused “so much confusion.”

    Shaw said she planned to ask the superintendent whether the district could ask all parents to check a box: “Do you want secrets to be held from you?”

    “They shouldn’t have to do that,” she said. “At the end of the day, it’s insane we have to go through all these hoops to uphold a parent’s right to know.”

    Christine Parker, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, said the ruling was consistent with the Supreme Court’s order in Mirabelli v. Bonta and other applicable law.

    “The court got it right: Blanket policies like Chino Valley USD’s, in which school employees must — in all circumstances — disclose a student’s gender identity to their parents, remain unlawful in California,” Parker said in a statement to EdSource.

    Another pending case referenced in Tuesday’s proceedings was the City of Huntington Beach v. Newsom, which hinged on a dispute over AB 1955, known as the SAFETY Act. The law, signed by Newsom in 2024, bars school districts from requiring staff to disclose a student’s sexual orientation or gender identity to parents. It went into effect before the injunction in the Chino Valley Unified case.

    In the wake of the Mirabelli v. Bonta case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a preliminary injunction for parents in the City of Huntington Beach v. Newsom who sued to block enforcement of the SAFETY Act.

    This story was originally published by EdSource. Sign up for their daily newsletter.