Showdown in court today over Trump’s National Guard deployment

It’s been more than a week since President Donald Trump deployed the California National Guard in Los Angeles without the consent of state officials, and the battle over who has control of the troops is still winding its way through the courts, report CalMatters’ Mikhail Zinshteyn and Ben Christopher.

Three judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals are expected today to hold a hearing on whether to let the troops stay in L.A. under Trump’s command, or uphold a federal judge’s ruling that would have suspended the deployment and returned the troops to Gov. Gavin Newsom.

The president deployed 4,000 troops from the National Guard — which has a dual chain of command with one leading the president and the other to the governor — by invoking a statute in federal law that details specific conditions when the National Guard can come under federal authority. But the state argues that the clashes between federal immigration enforcement agents and demonstrators protesting against immigration sweeps do not meet those conditions.

Read more here.

In response to some raids carried out by masked immigration enforcement agents, two Democratic Bay Area state senators introduced a bill that would bar, with some exceptions, local law enforcement officers from covering their faces. The measure would also require officers to be identifiable, such as having a badge number or other information, readily accessible.

The bill’s authors, Sens. Scott Wiener of San Francisco and Jesse Arreguín of Oakland, introduced the measure Monday at San Francisco City Hall. They said the bill seeks to ensure public safety by curbing people’s ability to impersonate masked officers, and increase accountability for law enforcement. The bill would make it a misdemeanor to violate the policy, and would not apply to federal law enforcement.

• Wiener: “Law enforcement officers are public servants. People should be able to see their faces, see who they are, know who they are. … We’re really at risk of having, effectively, secret police in this country.”

In the last few months, there have been reported instances of people impersonating immigration officers to kidnap or sexually assault others, including in North Carolina, New York and Florida. The suspect in Saturday’s shooting of two Minnesota lawmakers, which left two dead and two others seriously wounded, also impersonated a police officer during the attacks.

In 2022 Newsom brought on former L.A. Mayor and current gubernatorial candidate Antonio Villaraigosa for a 10-month stint to advise the governor on how to overhaul California’s approach to major infrastructure projects. 

But the nonprofit tasked with overseeing Villaraigosa’s work, California Forward, could not cover his salary alone, and it turned to previously undisclosed corporate donors to shore up funds, write CalMatters’ Alexei Koseff and Byrhonda Lyons.

In total, the nonprofit raised $118,800 from a dozen donors to pay Villaraigosa’s salary. Most of the donors, such as the Port of San Diego, SoCalGas and Southern California Edison, had a vested interest in state infrastructure projects.

State law requires elected officials, including Newsom, to disclose so-called behested payments, which are contributions they solicit for governmental or charitable purposes. But California Forward does not have to, and it provided a list of donors only at CalMatters’ request. 

Some good governance advocates say this financial arrangement is an “ethically suspect” way of using behested payments, since it doesn’t make explicitly clear what the true sources of funding are. But Villaraigosa, who earned more than $380,000 for his work, said he has no problems about how much he earned, and that “it was a huge return on investment for the state.”

Read more here.

After tech mogul and billionaire Elon Musk gave out $1 million checks to voters in swing states last year, one California lawmaker wrote a bill to prohibit people from offering cash “with the intent to induce” others to vote or to register to vote.

As CalMatters’ Ryan Sabalow explains, in addition to the presidential election, Musk offered $1 million checks in the lead up to this year’s Wisconsin Supreme Court race, as well as $100 to voters who signed a petition opposing “activist judges.” In lawsuits filed against Musk and his political action committee related to the giveaways, Musk’s attorneys argue he was exercising his right to free speech.

Out of a concern that wealthy people will hold more lotteries to boost voter turnout, Democratic Sen. Tom Umberg of Santa Ana has a bill that would make it illegal to pay people, including through lotteries or other prize-drawing contests, based on “whether the person voted or the person’s voter registration status.” The bill sailed through the Senate with bipartisan support and is now before the Assembly.

Read more here.

Despite the state and federal government pouring billions of dollars to improve the health of the Tahoe region, Lake Tahoe is still polluted. On Monday UC Davis published a report revealing how murky the iconic alpine lake has become. Find out more from CalMatters’ Rachel Becker.