The Brief

First Amendment advocates are raising concerns about a Los Angeles proposal to use anti-littering laws to outlaw mass dissemination of antisemitic flyers that have appeared in some city neighborhoods.

The motion, submitted last month by council members Bob Blumenfield and Nithya Raman and approved last week by the city's Public Safety Committee, seeks a report from the city attorney and the police department on "littering in mass as a method to disseminate hate speech" and what legal options may be used to prevent it.

Although it does not identify who is responsible for the antisemitic flyers, the motion notes there have been incidents in recent years in Culver City, Brentwood, Beverly Hills and Huntington Beach, and that they are "sadly becoming a common occurrence."

“They go into a Jewish community and they put these very antisemitic pieces on people’s front steps trying to target, trying to intimidate a particular community,” Blumenfield said.

Los Angeles is not the first California city to consider combating hate speech with anti-littering laws, but the idea is still relatively untested.

David Loy, legal director of the California-based First Amendment Coalition, said flyers and leaflets are “at the core” of the country's constitutional protections.

“We have a long historical and protected tradition of people using flyers and leaflets and pamphlets to express their point of view going back to the founding of the republic,” he said. That includes hate speech, he added.

However, the constitution does not protect true threats of harm.

“What is a true threat cannot arise simply from the content of viewpoint or speech,” Loy said. “It has to be a genuine threat.”

So one question that could be used to determine whether the idea — if it becomes law in L.A. — would pass constitutional muster is: Does it target behavior that amounts to a real threat? Another is: What was the motivation behind creating it?

In other words, Loy said, if a “superficially neutral” statute is motivated by “hostility to content, that can present a First Amendment problem.”

Last month, the city of Poway in San Diego County approved a similar measure. The city council voted to ban “hate litter” in response to the distribution of antisemitic flyers near a synagogue where a gunman opened fire in 2019, killing one person and injuring others, according to The San Diego Union-Tribune.

Loy said he is keeping an eye on the ordinance and “considering what our next steps will be.”

The motion in Los Angeles comes as the conflict between Israel and Hamas continues and tensions between pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian activists in the United States have increased.

Pro-Palestinian activists worry that passing an ordinance in L.A. like the one in Poway could lead to censorship of their message criticizing Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. Too often, they say, criticism of Israel is equated with antisemitism.

“It's very alarming,” said Hamid Khan of the Stop LAPD Spying Coalition. “This is a shameful move to intimidate and harass people who are expressing their political views and who are speaking out for the liberation of Palestine.”

At a meeting of the city's Public Safety Committee last week, activist Christian Sanchez called it “dishonest” to connect the issue to littering.

“The people of L.A. will not tolerate the impediment of our rights,” he said.

The motion asks the city attorney, with the help of the Los Angeles Police Department, to look at ways “to increase penalties that make it a misdemeanor for any person to litter with the intent to willfully injure, intimidate, interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person based on their perceived characteristics.”

Right now, littering is an infraction usually punishable by a fine.

In an interview, Blumenfield insisted he is not interested in restricting free speech rights.

“It's complicated in terms of the free speech issues,” he said. “The idea is to look at how we can say that this is wrong and that as a city we can have some penalties to prevent people from intimidating people in this manner.”

For Sanchez, the pro-Palestinian activist, the move is ominous. “The descent into fascism is a slippery slope,” he told the committee.

Peter Eliasberg of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California said he sees a number of potential problems with the move.

“I think the city council is treading in dangerous territory here,” he said. "It's going to depend a lot on how any ordinance is written by the city attorney. There are a lot of potential landmines here."

Now that the Public Safety Committee has approved the motion, the next step is for it to be considered by the full city council.

A federal judge on Monday temporarily blocked California from enforcing a new law that would have banned federal immigration agents from wearing masks during immigration sweeps.

U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder ruled that the state could not enforce the facial-covering provision of SB 627, the No Secret Police Act, while a legal challenge brought by the federal government moved forward. That lawsuit argued that SB 627 conflicted with federal authority and would improperly limit how federal agents could do their jobs.

The backstory

The law banning facial coverings took effect Jan. 1 and had already sparked confusion and backlash in Los Angeles after Los Angeles Police Department Chief Jim McDonnell said officers would not enforce the ban. McDonnell called the law bad policy and said enforcing it could put officers and the public at risk.

McDonnell’s statements drew sharp criticism from local elected officials, the authors of the laws, and immigration law attorneys and advocates.

The federal government sued California last year, arguing that SB 627 and a second law, SB 805, known as the No Vigilantes Act, unlawfully interfered with federal immigration enforcement. SB 627 sought, in part, to make it illegal for most officers, including federal agents, to conduct law enforcement operations while wearing masks. SB 805, in part, required agents to identify themselves.

About the ruling

Snyder ruled that the mask ban inconsistently applied to some law enforcement officers and not others, which is one of the reasons why the judge temporarily blocked it.

Federal attorneys had argued that agents should be allowed to wear masks for their safety against harassment and assault, such as doxxing. Snyder disagreed, writing that while federal agents and other public figures face security risks, masks were not essential for performing their duties.

“Security concerns exist for federal law enforcement officers with and without masks,” Snyder wrote. “If anything, the Court finds that the presence of masked and unidentifiable individuals, including law enforcement, is more likely to heighten the sense of insecurity for all.”

Reaction to the ruling

One of the law’s authors, Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, announced Monday afternoon that he would be introducing new legislation aimed at revising the original law to apply to state officers it previously exempted. He characterized the ruling as a win and vowed to continue efforts to unmask federal agents.

“Now that the Court has made clear that state officers must be included, I am immediately introducing new legislation to include state officers,” Wiener said in a prepared statement, adding: “We will unmask these thugs and hold them accountable. Full stop.”

What's next

Monday’s ruling still required enforcement of SB 627 and SB 805’s remaining provisions, including that officers identify themselves. It also protected the pathway for civilians to directly sue agents for misconduct.

This temporary order will remain in effect until the federal case is resolved. The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to requests for comment. This story will update if it does.

A new report from L.A. County offers a closer look at the economic damage to the region caused by federal immigration enforcement — and at the neighborhoods most affected.

The analysis, compiled by the Los Angeles County Department of Economic Opportunity and Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation, identified the neighborhoods hardest hit by ICE, and found that they were more economically precarious.

Researchers determined that the most targeted ZIP code in the county is 91402, which spans Mission Hills, Panorama City and North Hills in the San Fernando Valley.

The report, which was commissioned by the county Board of Supervisors, also found that many small businesses county-wide have lost revenue and customers since ICE ramped up its presence in Los Angeles last year.

The Department of Homeland Security has detained more than 10,000 people in the L.A.-area since June, according to numbers released in December. Its aggressive deportation campaign has altered daily life in Los Angeles, where nearly one in five people is undocumented or lives with someone who is undocumented.

The report lays out the ripple effect of that campaign on communities, local businesses, and workers, and its uneven influence on the region as a whole.

Vulnerable neighborhoods

The survey created an index of most vulnerable areas.

(

Courtesy L.A. County Economic Development Corporation

)

The report lays out the economic consequences for communities repeatedly hit by ICE sweeps.

The Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation, a nonprofit research group, used census data and reports on detentions from the Los Angeles Rapid Response Network to assess how vulnerable each L.A. County ZIP code was to immigration enforcement.

Researchers looked at four other factors for each ZIP code: shares of foreign-born population from Latin America, renter households, Spanish-speaking households and non-citizen workforce.

The 10 most vulnerable ZIP codes, they determined, are primarily in working class, immigrant neighborhoods including Bell, Pico Rivera and Southeast L.A.

Researchers used employment data for the county and found that those ZIP codes were over-represented in industries, including manufacturing and retail, which have a significant number of undocumented workers. Businesses in these neighborhoods also tended to have fewer employees on average compared to the rest of the county, and employees were paid less.

"Taken together, these exhibits show that areas facing heightened immigration enforcement differ from the rest of Los Angeles County and appear more economically vulnerable," the report states.

Declined revenue, less foot traffic

Researchers also distributed a survey to small businesses county-wide to assess how federal immigration enforcement has affected the communities they operate in and their bottom lines since summer.

More than 200 small businesses responded. Most reported having fewer than 10 employees, and the majority were in industries like restaurants, retail, professional or personal services and manufacturing.

The majority of respondents — 82% — reported being negatively affected by federal immigration enforcement. Around half reported lost regular customers, less foot traffic or reduced daily sales. Around a quarter reported temporary closures due to concerns from community members.

Many surveyed business owners reported a climate of fear that has led people to stay home and avoid certain places altogether.

"Businesses reported that customers expressed fear about their location, that customers asked about safety in the neighborhood, and that customers avoided shopping or dining in their neighborhood," the report states.

Undocumented workers generate 17% of county's economic activity

No corner of Los Angeles is exempt to the ongoing immigration sweeps that have become a new reality for the region. Nearly 950,000 undocumented immigrants live in L.A. County, according to recent estimates. That's more than 9% of people in the county who lack legal status.

Undocumented workers also play a huge role in many of L.A.'s key industries. Recent research from the USC Equity Research Institute estimates that 37% of cleaning and maintenance workers and 25% of food preparation and service workers in L.A. County are undocumented.

The industry with the highest percentage of undocumented workers is construction, at 40%.

The county's undocumented population together generates just under $240 billion in economic output, according to the county's report. That's around 17% of the county's total economic activity.

The Los Angeles Unified School District rescheduled a Tuesday meeting where the board was expected to vote on layoffs as part of a larger plan to cut spending.

“The district has adjusted the date of the upcoming board meeting to ensure adequate time for preparation, public engagement, and responsible deliberation on items of significant impact and interest to our workforce and community,” an LAUSD spokesperson wrote in a statement to LAist.

They wrote the proposed reduction in force would be presented at a “future meeting.” Tuesday’s meeting is currently re-scheduled for Tuesday, Feb. 17.

In a Friday letter, the unions representing LAUSD teachers, support staff and principals asked the board to delay the RIF vote until there is more information available about state funding and the public has more time to understand the proposed cuts.

“The notion that these are dark times for education requiring harmful cuts when there are record high state revenues is fearmongering,” the union letter reads.

LAUSD's financial challenges

For the last two years, the district has relied on reserves to backfill a multi-billion-dollar deficit. That deficit comes enrollment has declined steeply but expenses have not. There are more than 40% fewer students compared to the early 2000s. At the same time, as costs have increased, the district has not closed schools or significantly reduced staff. LAUSD hired more staff to support students during the pandemic, and now the federal relief dollars that initially funded those positions are gone.

The layoff vote is part of a $1.4 billion “fiscal stabilization plan.” Reductions in force are proposed for several categories including “un-funded” positions, central office staff, and at schools that support higher needs students.

LAUSD must vote on the reduction in force before March 15, the deadline for California school districts to notify staff they may be laid off.

 “It is not a foregone conclusion that people will lose jobs,” said Superintendent Alberto Carvalho at a Jan. 20 board meeting. For example, he said staff may be reassigned to vacant positions or given the opportunity to transfer to another school.

Where are the plan details?

At that same meeting, several board members pressed LAUSD staff for more details.

“When are we going to know the central office reductions? When are we going to know how many of those [there] are?” Karla Griego, a board member who represents District 5, asked, adding: “In a couple of weeks, I hope.”

“No, sooner,” responded Saman Bravo-Karimi, LAUSD's chief financial officer. Bravo-Karimi said the board would be provided with the number of positions impacted and their job classifications.

LAist requested information about the proposed layoffs last week and was told by a district spokesperson that the information would not be available until the board materials were publicly posted.

California’s Brown Act requires public agencies, including school districts, to post information about their regular meetings, including a description of each matter to be discussed, at least 72 hours in advance. Some agencies opt to publish the information even earlier.

No materials related to the Feb. 10 meeting were posted by that 72-hour deadline, and the meeting was rescheduled Sunday.

LAist reached out to Scott Schmerelson, LAUSD board president, who represents District 3, to discuss the delayed meeting. As of Monday evening Schmerelson had not responded.

Weigh in on LAUSD’s planned layoffs

The next meeting where the board could vote on the layoff proposal is Tuesday, Feb. 17. The agenda for the meeting must be publicly posted by Saturday, Feb. 14 at 10 a.m.— 72 hours before the start of the meeting. Sign up to get the agendas emailed here.