More stories

  • in

    Trump Administration Pulls Back From Local Police Oversight Across U.S.

    The Justice Department said that it would abandon efforts to overhaul local policing in Minneapolis and other cities with histories of civil rights violations.The Trump administration moved on Wednesday to scrap proposed agreements for federal oversight of police departments in Minneapolis and Louisville, Ky., as part of a broader abandonment of efforts by previous administrations to overhaul local law enforcement across the United States.Justice Department officials said they planned to drop cases filed after incidents of police violence against Black people in Minneapolis and Louisville, and to close investigations into departments in Memphis; Phoenix; Oklahoma City; Trenton, N.J.; and Mount Vernon, N.Y., as well as a case against the Louisiana State Police.In those cities and states, Justice Department officials said, they were retracting Biden-era findings that police departments had violated the constitutional rights of residents and were declaring those findings to be misguided.The announcement came four days before the fifth anniversary of the murder of George Floyd, a 46-year-old Black man who died at the hands of the Minneapolis police. That act of violence, caught on video, inspired national outrage and worldwide protests against police violence targeting Black Americans.It also resulted in a withering federal report that found that the Minneapolis Police Department had routinely discriminated against Black and Native American people and had used deadly force without justification. After nearly two years of negotiations, the Justice Department and the city submitted an agreement to the court in January calling for federal oversight of the Police Department’s efforts to address the issues.That arrangement, known as a consent decree, was similar to court-approved agreements between the federal government and at least 13 other cities whose police forces have been accused of widespread civil rights abuses, including Los Angeles, Newark and Ferguson, Mo.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Cher Wants a Better Home for L.A.’s Elephants. Not Tulsa.

    For years, animal-rights advocates have pushed for the elephants at the Los Angeles Zoo to be moved to an animal sanctuary.But in Southern California, even the elephants have celebrity backers. One in particular, Billy, has gotten some extra love from Cher.“Billy doesn’t deserve this,” the singer said in an interview on Thursday. She says the 40-year-old pachyderm, who has been at the zoo since 1989, “has had a terrible life” in a restrictive enclosure, with minimal shade and hard ground that could damage his feet.In recent months, the legal, political and zoological drama playing out over the fate of the zoo’s Asian elephants has escalated. After two aging members of the herd had to be euthanized, zoo officials announced in April that Billy and the only other surviving elephant, Tina, who is 59, would soon be relocated.But instead of the sanctuary that Cher and other advocates wanted, officials said the elephants would be moved to another zoo in Tulsa, Okla., where they could join a larger herd. That has led to protests, a lawsuit, tense city meetings, anger at the zoo director and a legal declaration submitted by the pop icon on the elephants’ behalf.The battle comes at a time when lawsuits from animal-rights advocates and the shrinking number of available animals have led more zoos to close their elephant enclosures. The Bronx Zoo has faced growing legal pressure to move its last two elephants to a sanctuary, and in 2023 the Oakland Zoo sent one of its elephants to a sanctuary in Tennessee after it was unable to find it a compatible companion.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    L.A. Fire Victims Move Away From Altadena and Pacific Palisades to Start Over

    In the aftermath of the Los Angeles fires that destroyed thousands of homes and properties, many fire victims moved far away from Altadena and Pacific Palisades in a sudden diaspora that upended the two tight-knit communities in ways beyond the initial loss of property.Residents now living in rentals, with expenses that have ballooned, expressed frustration with school transfers, longer commutes to work and the overnight disappearance of yearslong relationships with their neighbors.Of those who had to move, more than half ended up in neighborhoods at least a half-hour’s drive away, according to more than 3,500 change of address records analyzed by The New York Times. A quarter left the Los Angeles metro area entirely, and most ended up living somewhere with higher population density than their original neighborhood. While the data doesn’t include every displaced person, the results provide a clearer picture of where the victims settled after several fires erupted amid high Santa Ana winds across Los Angeles in early January. More

  • in

    In Menendez Brothers Case, a Reckoning With the 1990s

    As a court reviewed the Menendez murder case, the culture and politics of the 1990s were scrutinized almost as much as the horrific crime.After Lyle and Erik Menendez were resentenced on Tuesday, paving the way for their possible release after more than three decades in prison, one of the first things their lawyer, Mark J. Geragos, did was make a phone call.Leslie Abramson, the brothers’ defense attorney at their trials in the 1990s who found herself parodied on “Saturday Night Live,” had in recent years warned Mr. Geragos that his efforts to free the brothers were doomed, in spite of the groundswell of support on social media.“No amount of TikTokers,” he recalled Ms. Abramson telling him, “was ever going to change anything.”Facing the bank of television cameras staking out the courthouse, Mr. Geragos told reporters he had just left a message for his old friend.“And so, Leslie, I will tell you it’s a whole different world we live in now,” he said. He continued, “We have evolved. This is not the ’90s anymore.”Indeed, over the last many months, the culture and politics of 1990s America seemed as much under the legal microscope as the horrific details of the Menendez brothers’ crimes and what witnesses described as the exemplary lives they led in prison ever since.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Newsom Asks Cities to Ban Homeless Encampments, Escalating Crackdown

    “There are no more excuses,” the California governor said in pushing for municipalities to address one of the most visible byproducts of homelessness.Gov. Gavin Newsom escalated California’s push to eradicate homeless encampments on Monday, calling on hundreds of cities, towns and counties to effectively ban tent camps on sidewalks, bike paths, parklands and other types of public property.Mr. Newsom’s administration has raised and spent tens of billions of dollars on programs to bring homeless people into housing and to emphasize treatment. But his move on Monday marks a tougher approach to one of the more visible aspects of the homelessness crisis. The governor has created a template for a local ordinance that municipalities can adopt to outlaw encampments and clear existing ones.California is home to about half of the nation’s unsheltered homeless population, a visible byproduct of the temperate climate and the state’s brutal housing crisis. Last year, a record 187,000 people were homeless in the state, according to the Public Policy Institute of California. Two-thirds were living unsheltered in tents, cars or outdoors.Mr. Newsom cannot force cities to pass his model ban, but its issuance coincides with the release of more than $3 billion in state-controlled housing funds that local officials can use to put his template in place. And though it’s not a mandate, the call to outlaw encampments statewide by one of the best-known Democrats in the country suggests a shift in the party’s approach to homelessness. Once a combative champion of liberal policies and a vocal Trump administration critic, Mr. Newsom has been stress-testing his party’s positions, to the point of elevating the ideas of Trump supporters on his podcast. The liberal approach to encampments has traditionally emphasized government-funded housing and treatment, and frowned on what some call criminalizing homelessness.The model ordinance Mr. Newsom wants local officials to adopt does not specify criminal penalties, but outlawing homeless encampments on public property makes them a crime by definition. Cities would decide on their own how tough the penalties should be, including arrests or citations to those who violate the ban. The template’s state-issued guidance says that no one “should face criminal punishment for sleeping outside when they have nowhere else to go.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Smokey Robinson Accused of Sexual Assault by Former Housekeepers

    The four women said the Motown legend abused them multiple times while they worked cleaning his home. His wife, they said, created a hostile work environment.Four women who worked as housekeepers for Smokey Robinson have accused the renowned Motown singer of sexual assault, claiming in a new lawsuit that he abused them dozens of times over many years while his wife turned a blind eye and berated them.The suit, filed in Los Angeles on Tuesday, identifies the women only as Jane Does 1 through 4. They each accuse Mr. Robinson, 85, of raping them repeatedly while they were employed cleaning his homes in Los Angeles; Ventura County, Calif.; and Las Vegas.All the while, the suit said, Mr. Robinson’s wife, Frances Robinson, failed to prevent her husband from assaulting the women despite knowing about his sexual misconduct.Three of the women feared reporting Mr. Robinson to the authorities because of their immigration status, according to the lawsuit, which also accuses the Robinsons of false imprisonment, creating a hostile work environment and failure to pay minimum wage.Mr. Robinson’s representatives did not immediately return requests for comment.“Our four clients have a common thread,” John Harris, a lawyer for the women, said at a news conference in Los Angeles on Tuesday. “They’re Hispanic women who were employed as housekeepers by the Robinsons, earning below minimum wage.”“As low-wage workers in vulnerable positions, they lacked the resources and options necessary to protect themselves from sexual assaults throughout their tenure as employees for the Robinsons,” Mr. Harris added.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Trump Says He Will Put 100% Tariff on Movies Made Outside U.S.

    Declaring foreign film production a national security threat, the president said he had asked his top trade official to start the process of imposing a tax on Hollywood.President Trump said he would impose a 100 percent tariff on movies “produced” outside the United States, proclaiming in a social media post on Sunday that the issue posed a national security threat. Mr. Trump said he had authorized Jamieson Greer, the United States Trade Representative, to begin the process of taxing “any and all Movies coming into our Country that are produced in Foreign Lands.” Mr. Trump added, “This is a concerted effort by other Nations and, therefore, a National Security threat.”The Motion Picture Association, which represents the biggest Hollywood studios in Washington, declined to comment. The association’s latest economic impact report, based primarily on government data and released in 2023, showed that the film industry generated a positive U.S. balance of trade for every major market in the world.As is often is the case with Mr. Trump’s declarations on social media, it was not entirely clear what he was talking about. Did he mean any movie, including independent foreign-language films destined for art house cinemas and movies that play exclusively on streaming services?Would such a tariff apply only to movies receiving tax incentives from foreign countries — or to any movie with scenes shot overseas? What about postproduction visual effects work? A single superhero movie can often involve a half-dozen or more specialized firms scattered around the world.Technically speaking, the vast majority of movies shown in American cinemas are produced in the United States — scripts written, preproduction planning handled, principal actors cast, footage edited and sound added. But Hollywood has increasingly turned to foreign locales for the cameras-rolling part of the moviemaking process because, as with so much traditional manufacturing, it is much cheaper.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Before the Fire, L.A. Tried to Restore Second Reservoir in Palisades

    Water supplies ran dry in the Pacific Palisades fire, in part because a reservoir was shut down for repairs. Records show the city had tried and failed to prepare an alternative reservoir.Seven months before fire swept through the Pacific Palisades neighborhood of Los Angeles, the city’s water managers were formulating a plan to revive an old reservoir to temporarily boost the area’s limited water capacity.The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power was exploring the option because the neighborhood’s main reservoir — the Santa Ynez Reservoir — had been taken offline as a result of a torn cover, which officials had begun preparations to repair early in 2024. The repair project was still months away from completion this January when the fire broke out, and with the reservoir empty, firefighters ran short of water in fighting the blaze.Emails released to The New York Times under public records law show that the city had searched for solutions to rectify the monthslong supply shortage but, despite lengthy discussions and preliminary preparations, failed to correct the problem in time.In early June 2024, crews spent several days cleaning the Pacific Palisades Reservoir, a facility that was about three miles away from the larger Santa Ynez site, and that was retired in 2013. The work, officials wrote, was “in preparation for temporarily placing the Pacific Palisades Reservoir back into service while the Santa Ynez Reservoir is out of service.”After the cleaning was completed, the crews planned more work, including disinfection of the area and installation of new pipes.But the plan to bring the old reservoir back online was never completed. Ellen Cheng, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, said in an email on Friday that the city ultimately determined that bringing the reservoir back online could have posed a risk to workers and residents of nearby homes because of structural and other safety issues.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More