The ruling, made public this week, stems from body-camera footage, sworn statements and internal text messages gathered during litigation over immigration sweeps that rattled Los Angeles neighborhoods in the summer of 2025. U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong upheld an earlier preliminary order finding that Border Patrol and ICE agents cannot simply take someone into custody — even someone suspected of being in the country illegally — without first assessing whether that person is likely to flee before a warrant could be obtained.

“This court finds sufficient evidence that defendants have a continuing policy and practice of making warrantless arrests in violation of the requirement to conduct a flight-risk analysis,” Frimpong wrote.

Federal law allows immigration officers to make warrantless arrests only when they have reasonable grounds to believe a person is in the country unlawfully and is likely to escape before a warrant can be secured. Attorneys representing immigrant rights groups argued that agents routinely skipped that step altogether, instead detaining people first and sorting out their legal status later.

“This ruling is one of the most significant decisions to date in the community’s fight to end the federal government’s cruel and unlawful practice of snatching people off the street and tearing families apart,” said Mayra Joachin, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Foundation of Southern California.

The Department of Homeland Security defended its agents’ conduct, saying in a statement that ICE has legal authority to make arrests under federal statute, using “reasonable suspicion” to investigate immigration status and probable cause to justify detentions in line with the Fourth Amendment. The agency noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has previously sided with it on similar enforcement questions.

The case grew out of a lawsuit filed last year by the ACLU and a coalition of advocacy organizations against the Department of Homeland Security, following a series of high-profile raids across Los Angeles led by former Border Patrol official Gregory Bovino. DHS attorneys have said those specific operations ended in February, but the broader deportation push under President Donald Trump has only accelerated since then. Nationally, arrests hit their highest point of Trump’s second term in July, with nearly 50,000 detentions recorded, according to the Deportation Data Project. In California, arrests were up more than 15% compared with the same period a year earlier.

One case at the center of the ruling involved a man identified in court records only by his initials, AT, who was detained outside a car wash in Los Angeles on a scorching August day. Body-camera footage shows a Border Patrol agent running up behind him as he stood near a Mazda with a rag and spray bottle in hand. Within seconds, the agent grabbed him by the collar of his Handy J Car Wash shirt.

“Hey, sir, let’s go,” the agent said in Spanish. Confused, the man asked where they were going and told the agent he had documentation. He was handcuffed within ten seconds and driven away in an unmarked Dodge Charger to an ICE processing facility, leaving his cleaning supplies behind on the hood of the car. He was fingerprinted and released later that day once officials realized he was a lawful permanent resident.

The arresting agent’s report claimed AT made “a couple of quick movements” suggesting he might flee — a claim not supported by the body-camera video. The agent also wrote that when asked about his citizenship, AT answered “United States” but appeared “confused and unsure of his answer, similar to people I have arrested previously.” Court records show the agent never attempted to check identification or ask basic background questions before handcuffing him — the kind of assessment federal law requires before a warrantless arrest can be made.

At the same car wash that day, another worker was detained by a different agent. That agent’s report noted the man had complied with instructions, yet later justified the arrest by claiming the man had “disobeyed the agent’s orders” — a contradiction that judges and attorneys pointed to as evidence of the pattern advocates have described. In legal filings, attorneys said roughly 80% of the arrest reports they reviewed either lacked any real flight-risk analysis or relied on boilerplate language that didn’t match the footage.

Frimpong specifically cited that car wash arrest in her ruling, noting stark differences between the government’s written justification and what the video actually showed. She wrote that although agents claimed the worker, identified as EGG, was likely to flee based on alleged “flight from law enforcement,” the footage showed him standing in the same spot throughout the encounter, working, until an agent called him over. “Contrary to the government’s written flight-risk analysis,” the judge wrote, “he did not flee.”

In that same recording, a supervising agent tells the worker, “We’re going to take you in and check that everything is fine. If everything checks out, we’ll let you go” — a comment attorneys say reveals how these operations actually functioned: arrest first, verify later.

Other footage submitted in the case appears to show agents disregarding earlier immigration court decisions altogether. In one clip from September, an agent asks a colleague whether they are still detaining people who already have scheduled immigration court hearings — a circumstance that typically signals a person has already been screened and found not to be a flight risk. Another agent responds, “I don’t care if you have a court date coming up, you’re a custody redetermination case,” indicating that agents were overriding prior judicial findings.

Attorneys representing the detained workers argued that even individuals already moving through the immigration court system, previously released on the presumption that they weren’t flight risks, were being swept up again. Agency policy requires Border Patrol officers to ask about identification, address and other flight-risk indicators before making an arrest, but plaintiffs say body-camera footage repeatedly shows agents skipping that step.

In one August 2025 raid captured on video, Border Patrol agents jumped out of a Penske rental truck to detain people in a Home Depot parking lot in Los Angeles. According to court records, an agent arrested a man identified as Tijerino-Garmendia after writing in his report that the man “stated he did not have any identification indicating his identity or address.” Footage reviewed by attorneys shows the agent never actually asked him those questions.

Similar rulings barring warrantless arrests have been issued by federal judges in Oregon, Colorado and Washington, D.C., though in at least two of those cases, courts later found that agents continued the practice despite the orders.

In the Los Angeles case, Frimpong directed agents to document the “specific and particularized facts” supporting probable cause that a person was likely to flee before a warrant could be obtained. She declined, however, to require agents to document community ties — such as employment, housing or family connections — when flight risk could be shown through other means. She also declined to require documentation of encounters where agents speak with someone but do not make an arrest.

The federal government asked for a two-week delay before the order took effect while it considered an appeal. Frimpong denied that request, stating that the government could not reasonably claim harm from being ordered simply to follow the law.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Judge Rules Immigration Agents Must Halt Warrantless Arrests appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The decision, issued by U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong and unsealed this week, cements a preliminary ruling she first signaled last month. It represents a significant setback for federal immigration enforcement tactics that have drawn intense scrutiny across Los Angeles since aggressive street operations swept through the region in 2025.

The case centers on a basic legal requirement: immigration officers cannot arrest someone without a warrant unless they have probable cause both that the person is undocumented and that the person is likely to escape before a warrant could be secured. Frimpong found overwhelming evidence that agents have been ignoring that second requirement altogether.

“This Court finds ample evidence that Defendants have an ongoing policy and practice of conducting warrantless arrests in violation of the requirement to conduct a likelihood-of-escape analysis,” she wrote.

One case illustrating the pattern involved a man identified only by the initials A.T., a worker at Handy J Car Wash in Los Angeles. Body camera footage from August 2025 shows a Border Patrol agent sprinting toward him as he wiped down a vehicle, then grabbing him by his shirt collar. Within ten seconds, A.T. was in handcuffs, despite telling the agent he had legal documentation. He was placed in an unmarked Dodge Charger and taken to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility, where he was fingerprinted and released hours later after officials determined he was a lawful permanent resident.

The agent’s written report claimed A.T. made sudden movements suggesting he might flee — a claim the body camera footage does not support. The agent also noted that A.T. seemed “confused and unsure” when asked about his citizenship, and used that uncertainty to justify the arrest. At no point, according to the footage, did the agent attempt to check identification or ask basic background questions before making the arrest — the type of assessment the law requires.

The lawsuit that led to Frimpong’s ruling was filed last year by the American Civil Liberties Union and several advocacy organizations, following widely criticized immigration raids across Los Angeles overseen by former Border Patrol official Gregory Bovino. Attorneys for the Department of Homeland Security have said those large-scale operations ended in February. Still, nationwide arrest numbers have continued to climb under the Trump administration’s expanded deportation push, hitting nearly 50,000 arrests in July — the highest monthly total of the administration, according to the Deportation Data Project. In California, arrests during that period were up more than 15 percent compared with the same time last year.

Attorneys representing those detained say the discrepancies between agents’ official arrest narratives and body camera footage were central to their case. In one example cited in Frimpong’s ruling, an agent claimed a worker identified as E.G.G. had tried to flee — but footage instead shows the man standing in place at the car wash the entire time, from when agents entered the business to when he was called over and detained. A supervising agent is heard on the recording telling the man, “We’re going to give you a ride, and check if everything is OK. If everything is OK, we’ll let you go” — a comment attorneys say reveals a pattern of arresting first and sorting out legal status afterward.

Other footage submitted in the case appears to show agents disregarding determinations already made by immigration courts. In one recording, an agent asks a colleague whether they are still detaining individuals who hold a notice to appear before an immigration judge — a document typically issued to people who have already been found not to pose a flight risk. Another agent responds bluntly that a pending court date does not matter, saying the person is subject to what he called a “custody redetermination.”

Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued this showed agents were not merely failing to perform their own flight-risk evaluations, but actively overriding judicial findings that a person was safe to release.

In another episode captured on video, agents jumped from a rented Penske truck to detain workers in a Home Depot parking lot in August 2025. One man, identified in court records as Tijerino-Garmendia, was reported by the arresting agent as having no identification or verified home address. But according to attorneys, the footage shows the agent never actually asked him those questions — undermining the written justification for the arrest.

Attorneys for the ACLU say such gaps were common. In a review of arrest reports connected to the case, they found that roughly 80 percent lacked any genuine flight-risk analysis, instead relying on generic, repeated language that did not reflect what agents actually observed or asked in the field.

“This ruling is one of the most important decisions to date in the community’s effort to end the federal government’s cruel and illegal practice of abducting people and separating them from their families,” said Mayra Joachin, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Foundation of Southern California.

Frimpong’s order requires agents going forward to document specific, individualized facts supporting their belief that a person was likely to flee before a warrant could be obtained. She stopped short, however, of requiring agents to detail community ties — such as employment, housing or family connections — as long as flight risk can be established through other means. She also declined to require documentation in cases where agents question someone but ultimately do not make an arrest.

Similar rulings restricting warrantless immigration arrests have been issued by federal judges in Oregon, Colorado and Washington, D.C. In two of those cases, courts later found that agents continued the practice despite the orders.

The Department of Homeland Security had requested a two-week delay before the new requirements take effect, citing the possibility of an appeal. Frimpong rejected that request, stating that the government could not reasonably claim to be harmed by simply being required to follow the law.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Judge Orders Immigration Agents to Halt Warrantless Arrest Tactics appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

State lawmakers advanced Assembly Bill 2760 this week, a measure that would bar ICE agents, along with state and local law enforcement officers, from wearing any equipment capable of delivering an electric shock. The bill would also prohibit California police departments from spending public funds to acquire such devices.

The legislation comes from Assemblymember LaShae Sharp-Collins, a San Diego Democrat, who introduced it just days before the legislative session was set to wrap up. She used a legislative maneuver known as a “gut and amend,” which strips an existing bill of its original content and replaces it with new language, allowing it to move through the process on an accelerated timeline.

The rush to act follows a Department of Homeland Security filing published earlier this month indicating that ICE intends to spend as much as $20 million on shock-emitting gloves manufactured by Compliant Technologies, a company based in Kentucky. The product, marketed under the name G.L.O.V.E. — short for Generated Low Output Voltage Emitter — is described by the manufacturer as a non-lethal tool designed to help officers de-escalate confrontations. The Associated Press first broke the story after reviewing the federal notice.

By Thursday, ICE had confirmed it awarded the company a $16.7 million contract to supply 6,000 pairs of the gloves.

Sharp-Collins told colleagues at a hearing this week that she felt compelled to act before any incidents occur in California. “While the gloves are not currently being used in California, waiting for a tragedy to act, in my personal opinion, and so many others, would be something that California could not handle,” she said.

She pointed to a case in Kentucky in which a man died last year after being shocked 27 times with the gloves and an additional 13 times with a Taser while in custody, according to reporting from The Guardian.

The controversy has also drawn attention in Washington. U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla joined other congressional Democrats in sending a letter Thursday to Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, calling on the department to scrap its contract with the glove manufacturer. The lawmakers described the devices as “hand-worn tasers disguised as restraint equipment.”

Civil rights advocates have rallied behind the California bill, framing the gloves as a dangerous and unnecessary escalation of force. “Electroshock gloves by any law enforcement agency makes Californians less safe,” said Anallely Martin of the California Immigrant Policy Center during testimony at the hearing.

Law enforcement groups, however, are pushing back hard against the proposal. The California State Sheriffs’ Association and several other organizations representing police argue the measure would strip officers of a useful tool for defusing tense encounters. Cory Salzillo, a lobbyist for the sheriffs’ association, told lawmakers the bill amounts to little more than a symbolic gesture aimed at the federal government. “This is a bad policy from a California law enforcement perspective, and it’s really only gonna be a message to the feds that’s going to fail to land,” he said.

The shock glove ban is the latest in a series of efforts by California Democrats to push back against the Trump administration’s expanded immigration enforcement operations. Earlier this week, lawmakers approved a separate bill that would prevent federal agents from serving alongside state or local police, and another that would make it easier for individuals to sue federal agents over alleged civil rights violations.

Not all of these efforts have withstood legal scrutiny. In April, a federal court struck down a 2025 California law that required masked immigration agents to identify themselves, ruling that the state had overstepped its authority by attempting to impose rules on federal personnel.

Legal experts expect the new legislation, if signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, to face a similar fate in court. Vikram Amar, a law professor at UC Davis, said states generally lack the authority to dictate how federal agents carry out their duties. “States simply can’t regulate how federal officers do their jobs, even if we don’t like how they do their jobs. That’s up to the federal government,” Amar said.

He added that without a stronger constitutional argument tying the gloves to violations of individual rights, the bill may carry more symbolic weight than legal force. “It makes a lot of bills like this kind of more performative than real,” Amar said.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Lawmakers Push to Ban Electric Shock Gloves Before ICE Can Purchase Them appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Despite mounting concerns from disability rights advocates, a federal judge and the California Department of Justice, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities continue to earn high marks in the agency’s own internal reviews.

A new analysis from the Project on Government Oversight found that under the Trump administration, the number of ICE detention centers receiving the agency’s top rating — “superior” — has tripled since 2024. According to the watchdog group, that surge in top scores has come alongside a rollback of detention standards and a drop in the number of facility inspections being conducted.

The timing is notable: those glowing evaluations have coincided with a rise in deaths among detained immigrants. In fact, 2025 marked the deadliest year in ICE custody since 2004.

The Project on Government Oversight reported that four people have died at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center in San Bernardino County since August 2025 — more than at any other detention facility in the country during that same stretch.

The ratings are issued by ICE’s own Office of Detention Oversight, which also tracks facilities’ failures to meet the agency’s detention standards. Those violations carry real consequences on paper — a facility that fails to meet standards twice in a row can lose federal funding.

“Despite this provision — or perhaps because of it — detention facilities rarely received failing grades from inspectors between fiscal years 2022 and 2026,” researchers with the watchdog group wrote in their report.

ICE detention centers are currently holding a record number of people, with at least 65,000 detained as of July 11. Yet even as the population under custody has climbed sharply, the agency has documented fewer violations inside its facilities.

The analysis found that reported violations at ICE detention centers dropped 68% between 2022 and 2025.

The Project on Government Oversight, which describes itself as a nonpartisan, nonprofit investigative organization, said in its report that ICE did not respond to multiple requests for an interview. The findings were published this week, and CalMatters has reached out to ICE for comment.

When reporters have raised concerns about conditions with the private prison companies that operate many of these facilities — including GEO Group and CoreCivic — those companies have typically responded by pointing to federal detention standards rather than addressing specific allegations directly.

Original source: CalMatters

The post ICE Facilities Receive High Health Marks in Report Despite Rising Death Toll appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Board Chair Terra Lawson-Remer and Vice Chair Paloma Aguirre announced the proposal Monday at a news conference at the county administration building, arguing that public facilities meant to serve San Diego residents should not double as training grounds for what they described as the federal government’s mass deportation campaign.

“Our local public facilities serve our residents — they do not exist to support federal immigration operations that ignore and trample due process and the rule of law,” Lawson-Remer said.

The two supervisors are calling for the county to terminate its agreements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection that allow agents to use county firing ranges. The measure is expected to go before the full Board of Supervisors on Tuesday.

The proposal stands in contrast to a similar debate that played out in Escondido earlier this year. In February, that city’s council voted to uphold its own contract with the Department of Homeland Security allowing ICE and CBP to train at Escondido’s firing range, despite public backlash.

Aguirre and Lawson-Remer say the push to end the county’s arrangement is rooted in growing alarm over aggressive immigration enforcement tactics that they say have torn families apart and spread fear throughout San Diego communities.

“Parents are afraid to drop their kids off at school, afraid to go to the grocery store, afraid to walk to work — simple moments that should be safe,” Aguirre said. “And while all of this is happening, ICE and CBP have been training at county gun ranges.”

That fear has been fueled by a string of high-profile raids and arrests over the past year and a half. In May 2025, ICE agents raided Buona Forchetta restaurant in San Diego, arresting four people in an operation that drew widespread public outrage. Months later, in August, agents detained parents outside elementary schools in Encinitas, Chula Vista and San Diego.

A CalMatters investigation using government data found that immigration arrests in the region spiked 1,500% between May and October compared with the same period the previous year.

According to figures released by Rep. Mike Levin, a Democrat representing parts of San Diego and Orange counties, immigration authorities deported more than 16,000 people from San Diego County between Jan. 20, 2025, and April 1, 2026. Federal officials have said their enforcement priority is immigrants with serious criminal records, but Levin said ICE has not disclosed how many of those detained locally actually had criminal convictions.

Supervisors argue that the aggressive enforcement approach carries public safety risks of its own, discouraging some residents from reporting crimes or cooperating with local law enforcement out of fear of deportation.

“Providing training grounds for Trump’s deportation force is a slap in the face to our residents, and it undermines our clear commitment to the rule of law and civil rights here in San Diego County,” Lawson-Remer said.

Since 2024, federal immigration agents have logged roughly 3,350 hours at the Regional Firearms Training Center in Otay Mesa, near the border, according to county records. The agreements permitting ICE and CBP to use county firearms facilities date back to 2021 and generate an estimated $126,780 in revenue, according to a letter submitted to the board. Because the contracts fell below a certain dollar threshold, they were approved administratively and never required a vote from the Board of Supervisors.

The new proposal would end not only that arrangement but also the use of a separate range the county leases from the U.S. Navy at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar.

“The federal government cannot terrorize our families all week long and then rent our gun range on the weekends — not in this county, not anymore,” Aguirre said.

Federal immigration agencies did not respond to questions from CalMatters about the proposal. However, the San Diego Union-Tribune reported that CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott said he was disappointed by the county’s move, warning that losing access to training facilities could lead to longer wait times at border crossings and San Diego International Airport.

Aguirre dismissed that warning, saying the relatively modest contract would have little bearing on federal operations. “The lines at San Ysidro would not be a consequence of this board’s actions,” she said. “They would be a decision made by the Trump administration and funded by us here in San Diego.”

The firing range proposal marks the latest effort by county leaders to distance San Diego from federal immigration enforcement. In January, the Board of Supervisors approved the Civil Liberties Enforcement and Accountability Rules ordinance, known as the CLEAR ordinance, which restricts federal immigration agents’ access to non-public county spaces. That measure passed with support from Lawson-Remer, Aguirre and fellow Democrat Supervisor Monica Montgomery Steppe, while the board’s two Republican members, Jim Desmond and Joel Anderson, voted against it.

In June, San Diego County also won a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security that granted county health officials the ability to conduct sanitary inspections at the Otay Mesa Detention Center. That legal victory came months after Lawson-Remer, Aguirre and County Public Health Officer Dr. Sayone Thihalolipavan were denied access to the facility.

Original source: CalMatters

The post San Diego County Supervisors Move to Bar ICE From County Firing Range appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The nonpartisan watchdog group Project on Government Oversight examined internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement inspection records and found that the number of detention centers earning the agency’s top rating of “superior” has tripled since 2024. That improvement in scores, the report notes, came at the same time ICE loosened its own detention standards and cut back on the frequency of inspections.

The findings stand in sharp contrast to a steady stream of complaints coming out of detention facilities in recent years — accounts of contaminated drinking water, poorly trained medical staff, and long delays in treating both urgent and chronic health conditions. Those concerns have been raised not just by detainees and advocacy groups, but by disability rights organizations, a federal judge and California’s own Department of Justice.

Nowhere is the disconnect more stark than at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center in San Bernardino County, which has recorded four deaths since August 2025 — more than any other detention facility in the nation during that period, according to the watchdog group’s data.

Nationally, 2025 was the deadliest year in ICE custody since 2004, according to tracking by The Guardian, even as the population held in detention has swelled to record levels. Federal data show at least 65,000 people were in ICE custody as of July 11.

The inspection scores come from ICE’s Office of Detention Oversight, which is also responsible for flagging “deficiencies,” or violations of federal detention standards. Those violations carry real consequences on paper — a facility that fails inspection twice in a row can lose its federal funding. Yet investigators found that outcome rarely happens.

“Despite this provision — or perhaps because of it — detention facilities rarely received failing grades from inspectors between fiscal years 2022 and 2026,” the report’s authors wrote.

The numbers tell a striking story: even as the detained population has grown dramatically, the number of documented violations at ICE facilities fell by 68% between 2022 and 2025, the analysis found.

The Project on Government Oversight, which bills itself as an independent investigative nonprofit, said ICE did not respond to repeated requests for comment before the report’s release Thursday. CalMatters has also reached out to ICE for comment.

Companies that operate many of these facilities under federal contract, including GEO Group and CoreCivic, have frequently pointed to their compliance with federal detention standards when responding to specific complaints raised by journalists and advocates — the same standards now under scrutiny in the new report.

Original source: CalMatters

The post ICE Rates Its Own Detention Centers Highly on Health Standards as Detainee Deaths Rise, Report Finds appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Board Chair Terra Lawson-Remer and Chair Pro Tem Paloma Aguirre announced the proposal at a press conference Monday outside the county administration building, framing it as a matter of principle for a county they say should not be lending its resources to immigration operations they view as harmful to due process.

“Our local public facilities serve our residents, not support Federal immigration operations that disregard and trample upon due process and rule of law,” Lawson-Remer said.

The measure heads to a full board vote Tuesday. If approved, it would terminate agreements allowing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection to train at the San Diego Regional Firearms Training Center in Otay Mesa, along with a separate range the county leases from the Navy at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar.

The debate echoes one that played out in Escondido earlier this year, where the city council voted in February to keep its own firing-range contract with the Department of Homeland Security intact despite vocal public opposition.

Aguirre said the timing of the county’s proposal reflects mounting anxiety among immigrant families amid a wave of enforcement actions. “Parents are afraid to drop their kids off from school, afraid to go to the grocery store, afraid to walk to work: simple moments that should feel safe,” she said. “And while all of this is happening, ICE and CBP have been training at county firing ranges.”

That fear has been stoked by a string of visible enforcement operations across the region. In May 2025, ICE agents raided Buona Forchetta restaurant in San Diego’s South Park neighborhood, detaining four workers and drawing widespread criticism. Months later, in August, agents detained parents outside elementary schools in Encinitas, Chula Vista and San Diego.

The numbers behind those headlines are substantial. A CalMatters analysis of federal data found immigration arrests in the region jumped roughly 1,500% between May and October compared with the same stretch the previous year. Rep. Mike Levin, a Democrat whose district spans parts of San Diego and Orange counties, has said federal figures show more than 16,000 people were removed from San Diego County between January 2025 and April of this year. Levin noted that ICE has not disclosed how many of those detained actually had criminal convictions, despite federal officials’ insistence that enforcement focuses on serious offenders.

Supervisors contend that such tactics carry a public safety cost of their own, discouraging immigrant residents from reporting crimes or cooperating with local law enforcement out of fear of being targeted. “Providing training grounds for Trump’s deportation force is a slap in the face of our residents and undermines our clear commitment to rule of law and civil rights here in San Diego County,” Lawson-Remer said.

According to county records, federal immigration agents have logged roughly 3,350 hours at the Otay Mesa training facility since 2024. The arrangements, first signed in 2021, generate about $126,780 in revenue for the county — a sum small enough that the deals were approved administratively rather than through a board vote.

“The federal government cannot terrorize our families all week and rent our firing range on the weekend: not on this county, not anymore,” Aguirre said.

Federal immigration officials did not respond to inquiries from CalMatters about the proposed cutoff. However, the San Diego Union-Tribune reported that CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott expressed disappointment with the county’s move, warning that losing access to the training facilities could result in longer wait times at border crossings and at San Diego International Airport.

Aguirre pushed back on that characterization, saying the contract’s limited scope means its cancellation would have little practical effect on federal operations. “Lines at San Ysidro would not be a consequence of this board’s actions,” she said. “They would be a choice made by the Trump Administration and paid for by us here in San Diego.”

The firing-range measure is the latest in a series of steps county leaders have taken to distance local government from federal immigration enforcement. In January, the board approved the Civil Liberties Enforcement and Accountability Rules ordinance, which restricts federal immigration agents from entering non-public county buildings and spaces. That measure passed on a party-line vote, with Lawson-Remer, Aguirre and fellow Democrat Monica Montgomery Steppe in favor, and Republican Supervisors Jim Desmond and Joel Anderson opposed.

In June, the county also prevailed in a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security that secured health inspection access to the Otay Mesa Detention Center — a facility Lawson-Remer, Aguirre and County Public Health Officer Sayone Thihalolipavan had previously been barred from entering.

Original source: CalMatters

The post San Diego County Supervisors Move to Bar ICE From County-Owned Firing Range appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that for more than three decades, the federal government treated immigrants detained inside the country differently than those apprehended right at the border. Immigrants caught crossing the border can be held and removed quickly, often without ever appearing before a judge. But those picked up elsewhere in the country have traditionally been given the option to post bond and remain with their families while their cases play out in court.

That distinction, the court said, has been essentially erased under the current administration, which has applied the same rigid detention standards to both groups regardless of how long someone has lived in the U.S. The result has been overcrowded detention facilities and a surge of release petitions flooding federal courts, including a wave of cases out of San Diego.

“Some of these detained aliens have resided in the United States for lengthy periods,” wrote 9th Circuit Judge Daniel Bress, a Trump appointee, in the majority opinion. Bress acknowledged that federal immigration statutes contain conflicting language on the issue, but said the historical practice of multiple administrations settled the question.

“We have 30 years of action — the government actively treating unadmitted aliens present in the interior of the country as entitled to bond hearings,” Bress wrote.

The case originated with immigrants detained in the Seattle area, but the ruling applies broadly across the West, including California. The court’s 2-1 decision reflects a broader split among federal judges nationwide on the issue, and legal observers say the disagreement all but guarantees the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually take up the case to settle it for good.

For Southern California, where immigration detention facilities and federal courts have absorbed much of the fallout from the administration’s enforcement policies, the ruling could bring some relief to detainees who have long argued they deserve a bond hearing rather than indefinite detention.

In other regional news, Republican Rep. David Valadao is bracing for another tough reelection fight in California’s 22nd Congressional District, which covers parts of the Central Valley. Though Valadao currently holds a fundraising edge over Democratic challenger Randy Villegas, political observers say his path back to Washington is far from secure.

Valadao, a dairy farmer by trade, has built his political brand around bipartisanship and remains the last House Republican who voted to impeach Trump following the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot. First elected in 2012, he lost his seat once before, during the Democratic wave of 2018 that swept through California during Trump’s first midterm election.

Democrats are hoping to recreate that momentum this cycle, betting that voter frustration over tariffs and inflation will work against Valadao, who also cast a deciding vote in favor of Trump’s federal budget package — legislation that cut $28.4 billion from California’s Medicaid program.

Meanwhile, UC San Diego has ended its participation in a federal grant program that funneled money to campus police in exchange for assistance to Border Patrol operations, following reporting that exposed the decade-long arrangement. Students had pushed back forcefully after learning of the partnership, sending complaints to administrators, organizing a February walkout, and threatening a public rally.

University officials have not directly confirmed the decision, but internal emails from a vice chancellor indicated in March that the school planned to drop out of the program and would not reapply. The San Diego County Sheriff’s Office, which oversees the grant’s operations, confirmed in May that UC San Diego would no longer take part in future rounds of funding.

In Sacramento, Gov. Gavin Newsom has named a new director to lead the state’s Professional Fiduciaries Bureau, filling a post that sat vacant for two years. The appointment of Nicole Dragoo, who previously served as the agency’s licensing chief, comes after reporting revealed the bureau had struggled to prevent conflicts of interest and curb abuses within the fiduciary industry.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Federal Court Rejects Trump Administration’s Mass Detention Policy appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The findings come from Dr. Muthusamy Anandkumar, who was assigned by a judge to oversee medical conditions at the California City Immigration Processing Center, a sprawling facility about 75 miles east of Bakersfield operated by private prison company CoreCivic. The federal government purchased the site earlier this month, though CoreCivic continues to run day-to-day operations.

Anandkumar was appointed in March as part of an ongoing lawsuit filed by seven detainees who argue that conditions inside the facility amount to a violation of their due process rights.

In his report, Anandkumar wrote that the center “lacks a reliable system for consistently providing adequate medical care, placing individuals at serious risk of both immediate and long-term harm.” He added that the pattern of failures points to systemic problems within the facility’s health care operations rather than isolated lapses.

The doctor was careful to note that individual health care workers were not to blame. Instead, he pointed to understaffing, weak management and insufficient oversight as the root causes. At times, he found, staff members were pulled out of ongoing training sessions to cover shifts because the facility was short-handed.

“As a result, employees who had not completed their own training were, in turn, training new hires,” Anandkumar wrote. “Given the number of patients and the seriousness of their medical and mental health needs, these significant shortcomings contribute to an unsafe environment.”

The monitor identified 13 separate deficiencies within CoreCivic’s medical program at the California City site, including inadequate emergency response, insufficient dental care and poor management of chronic illnesses. He also found that detainees were not given timely access to prescribed medications.

ICE opened the detention center on the grounds of a shuttered state prison and began housing detainees there in August. Just a month later, Disability Rights California, a state advocacy organization, conducted a two-day inspection of the facility and reported that staff were failing to distribute medication for potentially life-threatening conditions and were not scheduling necessary surgeries in a timely manner.

That inspection’s findings closely mirror what Anandkumar documented ten months later, including delayed responses to urgent medical requests and failure to distribute medication for conditions requiring ongoing management, such as diabetes, high blood pressure and seizure disorders.

A CoreCivic spokesperson said the facility offers daily access to physical and mental health services, along with round-the-clock emergency medical care.

“When specialized or advanced care is required beyond what is available on-site, our medical staff coordinates with community physicians, hospitals and specialty providers to facilitate access to medically necessary treatment,” said Ryan Gustin, a CoreCivic spokesperson. “While we work diligently to arrange and facilitate those appointments, the scheduling, availability and capacity of outside providers are not something the facility controls.”

Gustin added that an ICE compliance officer monitors adherence to detention standards at the facility.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of detainees held at the site, alleges that people in custody lack sufficient clothing to withstand cold desert nights and are being denied medical care for life-threatening conditions. The complaint also states that detainees with mobility impairments have been denied wheelchairs, with some unable to bathe or dress themselves without assistance.

Sokhean Keo, one of the detainees named as a plaintiff in the case against ICE, said in a statement distributed by the ACLU that he never received medication prescribed to treat an infection.

“If this system isn’t changed,” Keo said, “sick people are going to die.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post Judge Sends Doctor to Inspect California’s Largest ICE Detention Facility — Here’s What He Found appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Dr. Muthusamy Anandkumar, who was assigned by a judge to inspect conditions at the California City Immigration Processing Center, concluded that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is not providing detainees with adequate medical care. His report describes detainees going without prescribed medications and waiting months for cancer treatment at the facility, located roughly 75 miles east of Bakersfield.

The center is operated by CoreCivic, a private prison contractor. The federal government bought the property earlier this month, though CoreCivic continues to run day-to-day operations there.

Anandkumar’s appointment stems from a lawsuit filed by seven detainees who argue that conditions inside the facility violate their constitutional right to due process. A federal judge named him as an independent monitor in March to assess the situation firsthand.

In his findings, Anandkumar wrote that the facility “lacks a reliable system to consistently provide adequate health care, placing individuals at serious risk of both immediate and long-term harm.” He added that the pattern of problems pointed to systemic breakdowns in how healthcare is delivered, rather than isolated incidents.

According to the report, the shortcomings are not the fault of individual medical staff but stem from deeper issues with staffing levels, management and oversight. Anandkumar noted that employees were sometimes pulled from training sessions to fill gaps in coverage caused by staff shortages — meaning workers who had not completed their own training were left to instruct incoming employees.

“Given the number of patients and the seriousness of their medical and mental health needs, these substantial gaps contribute to an unsafe environment,” he wrote.

The monitor identified 13 separate areas of concern within CoreCivic’s healthcare operations, including shortcomings in emergency response, dental services and the management of chronic illnesses. He also found that detainees were not getting timely access to medications they had been prescribed.

ICE began housing detainees at the site — a former state prison — in August. The following month, the advocacy group Disability Rights California conducted its own two-day review of the facility and reported similarly troubling findings, including failures to provide medication for life-threatening conditions and delays in scheduling necessary surgeries.

The overlap between that September inspection and Anandkumar’s report, issued roughly ten months later, is notable. Both documented slow responses to urgent medical requests and lapses in distributing medication needed to manage conditions such as diabetes, high blood pressure and seizure disorders.

CoreCivic spokesperson Ryan Gustin defended the facility’s healthcare operations, saying detainees have daily access to physical and mental health services and that emergency medical care is available around the clock. He said that when specialized treatment is needed beyond what’s available on-site, facility staff work to coordinate care with outside hospitals and physicians — though he noted that scheduling and provider availability are ultimately outside the facility’s control.

Gustin added that compliance with detention standards is monitored by an ICE compliance officer assigned to the facility.

The underlying lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, raises additional concerns beyond medical care. Plaintiffs allege that detainees lack adequate clothing to withstand cold desert nights and that some with mobility impairments have been denied wheelchairs, leaving them unable to bathe or dress themselves without assistance.

Among the plaintiffs is Sokhean Keo, a detainee at the facility, who said in a statement released through the ACLU that he never received medication prescribed to treat an infection.

“If there is no change to this system,” Keo said, “sick people are going to die.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post Doctor’s Inspection of California’s Largest ICE Detention Facility Reveals Troubling Conditions, Court-Ordered Report Shows appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.