Topline:
Justices heard arguments Wednesday in a case that almost certainly will result in a historic ruling. At issue: President Trump's challenge to a constitutional provision that has long been interpreted to guarantee American citizenship to every child born in the United States.
Why now: At issue is President Trump's challenge to a constitutional provision that has long been interpreted to guarantee American citizenship to every child born in the United States.
Stay up to date with our Politics newsletter, sent weekly.
Justices heard arguments Wednesday in a case that almost certainly will result in a historic ruling. At issue: President Trump's challenge to a constitutional provision that has long been interpreted to guarantee American citizenship to every child born in the United States.
Trump has long maintained that the Constitution does not guarantee birthright citizenship. So, on Day 1 of his second term, he issued an executive order barring automatic citizenship for any baby born in the U.S. whose parents entered the country illegally or who were here legally, but on a temporary, or even a long-term visa.
"We are the only country in the world that does this with birthright," Trump said as he signed the executive order. "And it's absolutely ridiculous."
That actually is not true. There are nearly 33 countries, mainly in North and South America, that have birthright citizenship — including, among others, Canada, Mexico, Brazil and Argentina.
Among those at the Supreme Court on Wednesday morning is Trump, making him the first sitting president to attend oral arguments at the nation's highest court.
But Trump has long been determined to rid this country of its longstanding protection for birthright citizenship. Wednesday is D-Day in that effort, and to understand the issues, it's worth taking a stroll through American history.
While citizenship was not defined at the nation's founding, the colonists were largely pro-immigrant, according to University of Virginia law professor Amanda Frost, author of American Birthright: How the Citizenship Clause made America American, due out in September.
The founders "wanted to populate this mostly empty continent," she observes, adding that, in fact, one of the complaints against the British king in the Declaration of Independence was that the British "were discouraging immigration."
Indeed, she notes, after the Revolutionary War, even those who had been loyal to the king but wanted to stay in America were granted U.S. citizenship.
Birthright citizenship didn't make it into the Constitution, though, until after the Civil War, when the nation enacted the 14th Amendment to reverse the Supreme Court's infamous Dred Scott decision — a ruling that in 1857 declared that Black people, enslaved or free, could not be citizens of the United States.
President Trump, however, maintains that the constitutional amendment was intended to be more limited than it has been in practice. "This was meant for the slaves … for the children of slaves," Trump said last January. "I'm in favor of that. But it wasn't meant for the entire world to occupy the United States."
But as the University of Virginia's Frost notes, the framers of the 14th Amendment had more than one explicit purpose. They wanted a clear, bright line definition of citizenship; they wanted the former slaves and their children to be citizens, and they wanted to include immigrants, many of whom were the targets of great hostility.
"I like to remind my students that between 1845 and 1855, approximately 2 million people from Ireland fled to the United States," Frost observes. They were fleeing from famine and harsh British rule. And while "there certainly was some prejudice and discrimination and xenophobia," she says, "their children soon would automatically become American citizens" when born on U.S. soil after enactment of the 14th Amendment.
Trump's interpretation of the 14th Amendment is avowedly far more restricted. What's more, it has not been embraced by the courts or the legal norms of the country for 160 years.
"The president's executive order is attempting a radical rewriting of that 14th Amendment guarantee to all of us," says Cecillia Wang, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Indeed, even as both Republican and Democratic administrations have sought in modern times to deport large numbers of individuals who have entered the country illegally, the notion of birthright citizenship has remained so entrenched that during World War II when Japanese citizens were held as enemy aliens in U.S. detention camps, their newborn children were automatically granted American citizenship because they were born on U.S. soil. And Congress later codified that understanding in the 1940s, '50s and '60s.
At the Supreme Court on Wednesday, the justices are likely to focus on some of the key court decisions that have protected birthright citizenship during the past century and a half. Perhaps most important among these is the case of Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco in 1873 to Chinese immigrants who ran a small business in the city. Back then, immigrants like Wong's parents were largely free to enter the U.S. without any documentation, but his parents eventually returned to China. And after their son visited them in 1895, officers at the port in San Francisco refused to allow him back into the United States, contending that he was not a qualified citizen.
Wong challenged the denial and, in 1898, the Supreme Court ruled in his favor. By a 6-2 vote, the justices interpreted the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to mean that all children born in the U.S. were automatically granted citizenship. The court noted that only three exceptions were specified in the amendment: The children of diplomats were not deemed to be U.S. citizens because their allegiance was to another country; the children of occupying armies were similarly excepted, as were the children of Native American tribes. Of these three exceptions, the only one that still applies is to the children of diplomats, as there are no invading armies, and Native Americans were granted automatic citizenship in 1924.
The Trump administration, however, argues that Wong Kim Ark's situation was very different from many of the children who become automatic American citizens today, because Wong's parents, though undocumented, were here legally, by virtue of having a permanent residence in the U.S. And the Trump administration points to language in the 1898 Supreme Court opinion that assumes the parents had legal status in the country because they had a permanent residence in San Francisco.
The Trump administration makes an even broader argument. "An individual who is naturally born in the United States is only considered a citizen if their parents have allegiance to the nation," says Daniel Epstein, vice president of America First Legal, the organization founded by the architect of Trump's immigration policies, Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff. "It is a misdemeanor to come into the United States without authorization. That is a crime," he says. "That is strong evidence that you don't kind of meet the traditional notion of allegiance."
Countering that argument, the ACLU's Wang will tell the Supreme Court that the men who wrote the 14th Amendment deliberately chose to confer automatic citizenship on the child, not the parent.
"And the idea — that actually goes back to the founding — is that in America we do not punish children for the sins of their fathers, but instead we wipe the slate clean. When you're born in this country, we're all Americans, all the same," Wang says.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is supporting the president's position, along with 11 other GOP senators, and 16 House members, who signed on to the America First brief.
"As a policy matter, birthright citizenship is stupid," Cruz says, "because it incentivizes illegal immigration. It makes absolutely no sense that someone breaks the law and they get rewarded with a very, very, precious gift, which is American citizenship."
The ACLU's Wang counters that Trump is trying, by executive order, to change the meaning of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, a measure that was approved overwhelmingly by the Congress in 1866 and, after a great public debate, ratified by more than three-quarters of the states. She argues that the consequences of such a dramatic change by executive fiat would have untold consequences.
"What will immediately happen is that every month, tens of thousands of U.S.-born babies will be stripped of their citizenship. They may be stateless because their parents' country of nationality may not consider them to be citizens. And so you'll see a permanent underclass of people who have no nationality, who are living in the United States, who can't pass on their nationality to their children born in the U.S.
In a separate brief, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops stresses the problems that would be created by generation after generation of children who are stateless, with no country to call home, and no citizenship to pass on to their children.
"The children … would be the ones to bear the brunt of this," says Bishop Daniel Flores, vice president of the bishops conference. "I have people asking this now in my diocese. 'Bishop, am I going to get into trouble if I give food to somebody that I'm not sure of their documentation? … Can we help these people? Because we think we need to, because they're people and they were born here."
The Trump administration counters that birthright citizenship raises two other problems: a generic potential threat to national security and the problem of so-called "birth tourism."
In fact, even birthright defenders concede that a cottage industry has long existed in which women pay money to come to the U.S. and have their children here. But the numbers are consistently very small. Even the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that favors limited immigration, estimates only 20,000 to 26,000 birth tourism children are born in the U.S. each year, compared to the overall birth count of 3.6 million babies born each year.
Daniel Epstein of America First Legal contends that numbers are not important. "I view just one illegal act as illegal, and birth tourism is illegal and it's against the law, and the law matters."
Population experts say that if automatic birthright citizenship were to be voided, the consequences would be profound — and counterintuitive. The Population Research Institute at Penn State, for instance, estimates that a repeal of birthright citizenship would result in 2.7 million more people living here illegally by 2045, people who previously would have been entitled to birthright citizenship, but now have no such citizenship for themselves or to pass on to their children or the generations thereafter.
Also likely to come up at today's Supreme Court argument are practical questions, like those raised by Justice Brett Kavanaugh last year in a related case. How would a hospital know that the parents of a child are illegally in the country? What would hospitals do with a newborn? What would states do? The answer from Trump's solicitor general, D. John Sauer, was "Federal officials will have to figure that out."
Topline:
With KNX's shift last month back to AM radio only, we asked Southern Californians to share their memories of listening to the radio.
Why now: Back in April, broadcast company Audacy announced it was moving KNX News — one of the last-remaining all-news FM stations — off 97.1 FM, but keeping the long-running news format on 1070 AM where it's been for more than 100 years. The move officially happened in May to make way for a new sports talk station.
A radio time capsule: AirTalk, LAist's flagship daily news show which airs on 89.3 FM, asked listeners to share their favorite memories of listening to the radio.
Continue reading... for vintage photos from The Los Angeles Public Library's digital archive collections highlighting Southern California's rich radio history.
Southern California was built on radio.
"I can still hear the jingle KFWB News 98,” wrote Taline in Los Feliz, during a recent conversation on LAist's daily news show, AirTalk, which airs on 89.3 FM. “I grew up hearing that in my dad's minivan on the way to and from school. It has a special place in my heart.”
Back in April, broadcast company Audacy announced KNX News — one of the last-remaining all-news FM stations — was leaving the FM dial where it had simulcast on 97.1 FM since 2021. The station, which is also one of the oldest in L.A., is not budging from 1070 AM where it has been on the air for more than 100 years. The move away from FM officially happened in May to make way for a new sports talk station, which Audacy officials called an area of growth for advertisers in today’s media landscape.
The move is one in a long line of changes for radio and a reminder that before podcasts, playlists and algorithms, many Southern Californians built their days around radio broadcasts.
Larry Mantle, now in his 41st year hosting AirTalk, remembers being a kid and dreaming of what it might be like to be behind the mic at one of these radio stations.
“ I grew up with KNX," he said. “My dream job as a kid was to be an anchor on KNX or KFWB, the two local all-news radio stations, 'cause there was nothing like hosting AirTalk that even existed at that point.”
Mantle opened up the phone lines on a recent show to hear from his fellow SoCal radio lovers about the shows they miss and the memories they have. Here's what they had to say:
“When you'd walk down Hollywood Boulevard where the station was, you could hear it playing as you went down the street,” said Olivia in Glendale about KLAC 570 with Al Jarvis.
Larry in Yorba Linda shouted out KBCA Jazz for its 24-hour jazz, saying “When I first moved out here in '68 from Phoenix, which had like an hour a week, it was a real wonder.”
Mark in Glassell Park emailed that he loves KCRW’s Henry Rollins, writing, “I used to bristle at his unique DJ persona, but over time, I came to love him and his crazy eclectic playlists. I find his knowledge in history and punk rock fascinating. He's a gem and a legend."
"I'd like to give a shout-out to all the DJs working at KXLU, the college station at Loyola Marymount University, said Jeremy in Culver City in an email. “That station's been on the air for nearly 60 years. I believe it's one of the best examples of what's possible with radio."
"KFWB and KRLA back in the day when they were rock music stations — Dr. Demento, one of my favorite on-air personalities, also had eclectic music taste," said Carrie in Desert Edge.
“ Dr. Demento was must listening when I was a kid in junior high school at Le Conte Junior High in Hollywood,” Mantle added. “Every Sunday night on KMET, we would make sure we were listening to Dr. Demento and his funny records.”
Listener support is vital to any radio station, and it’s clear KNX has many lifelong fans. AirTalk listeners highlighted their support for household KNX names over the decades like Bill Keene, Melinda Lee, Mike Roy and Jackie Olden.
As KNX makes changes, many are watching closely and thinking about the future of radio.
Listeners like Tommy in La Quinta are left wondering if the radio dial will be the same…
“I’m a hardcore listener, but I don't know about casual listeners [and] if they'll tune to AM,” he said.
Topline:
After months of hand-wringing, Los Angeles and LA28 have come to a tentative agreement on how Olympics organizers will reimburse the city for its expenses for the 2028 Summer Games.
What's in the deal? The private Olympic organizing committee will pay upfront for the estimated cost of services that are not eligible for federal reimbursement, like trash pick-up and traffic control. Under another proposal, the city would also be able to tap an LA28 contingency fund if it isn't fully repaid by the federal government for policing costs at Olympic venues.
What happens now: The agreement is nearly nine months overdue and still needs approval by Mayor Karen Bass and the city council. The City Council's ad-hoc committee on the 2028 Games will meet Tuesday afternoon to vote on the agreement.
Concerns remain: The contract between the two parties doesn't fully resolve one of the biggest areas of financial risk for the city: the enormous cost of security for an event as extensive and high-profile as the summer Olympics and Paralympics.
Read on...for more on concerns over security costs for 2028.
After months of hand-wringing, Los Angeles and LA28 have come to a tentative agreement on how Olympics organizers will reimburse the city for its expenses for the 2028 Summer Games.
According to the deal, the private Olympic organizing committee will pay upfront for the estimated cost of services that are not eligible for federal reimbursement, like trash pick-up and traffic control. Under another proposal, the city would also be able to tap an LA28 contingency fund if it isn't fully repaid by the federal government for policing costs at Olympic venues.
The agreement is nearly nine months overdue and still needs approval by Mayor Karen Bass and the City Council.
The 2028 Olympics are intended to be privately financed, and an existing city agreement with LA28 states that the Olympics organizers, not L.A., will pay for extra costs for public services in support of the Games. But L.A. is the financial back-stop for the Olympics, meaning if LA28 goes in the red, taxpayers will pick up the bill.
Beyond that, the city services agreement presents another area where L.A. could incur additional unexpected expenses for hosting the Games. L.A. City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez warned LA28 CEO Reynold Hoover earlier this year that a bad deal could "bankrupt" the city.
Jacie Prieto Lopez, an LA28 spokesperson, and Paul Krekorian, who leads the city's office of major events, said in statements that the freshly inked agreement would help deliver a fiscally responsible Games.
"Mayor Bass’ priority is that the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games be fiscally responsible, protect taxpayers, and benefit Angelenos for decades to come. This agreement helps deliver that commitment," Krekorian said.
But the contract between the two parties doesn't fully resolve one of the biggest areas of financial risk for the city: the enormous cost of security for an event as extensive and high-profile as the summer Olympics and Paralympics.
Organizers are counting on the federal government to pay for public safety at Olympic venues that are considered part of a "national special security event." That includes costs for LAPD staffing. LA28 has not included security costs in its $7.1 billion budget — a fact that City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto criticized earlier this year.
The federal government has so far allocated $1 billion for security costs for the Olympics. Exactly where those federal funds will go has not yet been determined, and there's no guarantee they will cover all of L.A.'s policing costs.
To address this, city officials have also proposed an amendment to a 2021 agreement between the city and LA28. That amendment would establish that if L.A. is not reimbursed by the federal government for all its eligible expenses, it could dip into LA28's contingency fund of $270 million before the private organizing committee could use those funds for any legacy projects.
But that bucket of money will first be used for any costs that Olympics organizers still owe if they run out of revenue — meaning if the Olympics don't turn a profit, the city's access to that money will depend on how much is left for the taking.
Civil rights attorney Connie Rice, who has been tracking the city's negotiations with LA28, told LAist the agreement was a "PR document" not a deal. She pointed out that if the federal government does not pay up for security spending as expected, L.A. could be in trouble.
" It leaves the taxpayers with a GoFundMe strategy," she said.
The city services agreement lays the groundwork for more negotiations between LA28 and the city. Each venue will require its own agreement, to be negotiated by July 1, 2027. Venues in the city of L.A. include Dodger Stadium, the L.A. Convention Center, L.A. Memorial Coliseum and the Venice Beach Boardwalk.
The City Council's ad-hoc committee on the 2028 Games will meet Tuesday afternoon to vote on the agreement.
Topline:
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass signed a pair of executive orders Monday to ramp up efforts to clean the mess left by the fire that burned for a week at a Boyle Heights warehouse.
Why now: Since the warehouse fire was put out, the 85 million pounds of frozen food stored inside is now rotting, spreading foul smells throughout surrounding neighborhoods and raising concerns about an influx of pests. Residents have also been left with worries about air and water contamination after the fire and possible long-term public health effects.
Spoiled food removal: Bass and city officials said Monday the warehouse owner, Lineage, began moving food debris on Sunday to landfills in Ventura and Riverside counties. The company predicts it will take 5,000 truckloads to remove it all.
Reducing odors: Lineage plans to apply a chemical deodorizer, likely chlorine dioxide, to the food, debris and trucks leaving the warehouse. It’s also installing devices within the warehouse that will spray mist over the food inside until it is moved.
Pest control: Lineage is responsible for pest management inside the warehouse, while the city of Los Angeles is responsible for it outside the warehouse. Both have hired private contractors to manage pest control.
Air and water testing: The South Coast Air Quality Management District is overseeing efforts to measure harmful material in the air and posting data to its online air quality map. Lineage also hired private contractor Onterris to monitor air quality in the community surrounding the warehouse, with South Coast AQMD’s oversight. The Los Angeles Department of Sanitation has been monitoring water flowing from the site since firefighting operations began. It’s using a variety of methods, including containment tanks and catch basins, to divert the runoff into the sewer and prevent it from flowing into the L.A. River.
What’s next: Bass’ two executive orders are intended to accelerate cleanup efforts, protect residents and hold accountable the companies responsible for the facility and its safety. One order directs the Fire Department to report on its investigation into the cause of the fire within 90 days. The orders also include a number of provisions to help Boyle Heights residents and businesses, including free public transit, financial assistance and expanded public health resources.
Why it matters: Officials and advocates have called for transparency around the cleanup, especially because they say the neighborhood has been historically under-resourced and disproportionately subjected to environmental burdens. One of the orders signed Monday directs city officials to compile a report within 45 days on industrial areas across Los Angeles that sit close to homes and schools. The report also must include possible zoning and land use changes that would reduce negative health effects from existing and future industrial facilities.
Topline:
L.A.’s lead homelessness agency, LAHSA, filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development on Monday, asking a judge for relief from a federal funding suspension it calls unjustified.
How we got here: On June 11, HUD suspended the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority from federal grant activity pending an investigation into alleged mismanagement. The federal agency said the suspension means LAHSA cannot fulfill its role as collaborative applicant for the entire region’s application for federal homelessness dollars for the upcoming fiscal year. In its lawsuit, LAHSA says the suspension is the Trump administration’s back door attempt to eliminate the Continuum of Care program in L.A., which gives local officials discretion over homelessness projects submitted for federal funding.
LAHSA’s challenge: LAHSA says HUD has failed to identify any public agreement or transaction that LAHSA has violated or cite proper evidence of mismanagement. LAHSA also claims several inaccuracies and misrepresentations in HUD’s original suspension letter, including relying on reviews that LAHSA says were irrelevant to federal funding. “HUD supports its position with an amalgamation of uncorroborated hearsay information apparently cherry-picked from the internet,” the complaint states.
Legal argument: LAHSA's attorneys contend that HUD unlawfully suspended funding, arguing that the action violates the Administrative Procedure Act, the Constitution's separation of powers principle, and the Tenth Amendment. LAHSA is asking for a stay of the HUD suspension pending judicial review and a permanent injunction barring head from suspending LAHSA or blocking the work of the Los Angeles Continuum of Care.
Why it matters: The deadline for the L.A. region to submit its application to HUD for regional homelessness grants is Aug. 26. LAHSA says the suspension jeopardizes $241 million in federal funding that supports more than 11,000 people across L.A. County. LAHSA says the HUD suspension could prevent the agency from other activities, including releasing the findings of its 2026 homeless count conducted in January.
