California challenges legality of Trump's terrible tariffs

SCREEN CAPTURE

Attorney General Rob Bonta announces his 15th lawsuit against the Trump administration.

It is the 15th lawsuit California Attorney General Rob Bonta has filed in his seemingly neverending battle against the Trump administration's allegedly illegal actions. This time, he's challenging Donald Trump's tariffs.

The Filipino American AG and California Gov. Gavin Newsom April 16 filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s unlawful use of power to impose tariffs and direct the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Customs and Border Patrol (CPB) to implement and enforce those tariffs without the consent of Congress.

“The President’s chaotic and haphazard implementation of tariffs is not only deeply troubling, it’s illegal. As the fifth largest economy in the world, California understands global trade policy is not just a game,” said Bonta in an April 16 press conference held on a farm in rural Turlock.

Since early February, the Trump Administration has issued over a dozen executive orders under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) to impose tariffs that have sent shockwaves through financial markets, businesses, and consumers in every corner of the globe.

In the latest lawsuit, Bonta and Newsom challenge Trumpt’s use of the IEEPA to levy those tariffs, arguing that the IEEPA does not authorize Trump to impose these tariffs. The emergency tariffs challenged under the lawsuit are projected to, at a minimum, shrink the US economy by $100 billion annually, increase inflation by 1.3%, and cost the average American family $2,100.

Bonta said Trump was “attempting to override Congress and steamroll the separation of powers” and that his “rogue and erratic tariffs” must be stopped to prevent further damage to California’s economy.

“Trump has had to resort to creating bogus national emergencies that defy reason,” Bonta said. “Bottom line: Trump doesn’t have the singular power to radically upend the country’s economic landscape. That’s not how democracy works.”

The economic impact of Trump’s unlawful tariffs could have resounding impacts on California’s economy, budget, and consumers. The state is the world's fifth largest economy - outpacing every US state and most countries - and is home to the largest shares of manufacturing and agricultural production in the US.

California is also a significant and frequent purchaser of goods impacted by the tariffs and the projected increase in cost to the state is significant.

        FYI: A copy of the complaint is available here.

California is the nation’s largest importer and second-largest exporter. Trump’s tariffs will impact California’s businesses, including its ports and small businesses that rely on trade. California’s agricultural sector, which exports goods around the world, will also face particularized challenges as other countries impose retaliatory tariffs and decrease trade in response to President Trump’s tariffs. Furthermore, the tariffs directly harm California’s ability to contract, purchase, and sell goods. These effects are already too real: vendors who contract with California have indicated that they will pass their increased costs from President Trump’s tariffs on to the state directly.

 “These tariffs are having a devastating downstream impact on San Francisco’s economy — especially our small businesses that rely on global supply chains and export markets to survive.," said Rodney Fong, CEO of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce. "From rising costs on imported goods to sudden disruptions in inventory and operations, our local entrepreneurs are bearing the brunt of an unpredictable trade policy. We support the state’s efforts to restore certainty and stability to the economic environment our businesses depend on.”

Claiming authority under the IEEPA, Trump has issued multiple executive orders to impose, pause, re-start, and modify 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada and a universal 10% tariff on every other U.S. trading partner.

Separately and in addition, Trump’s actions have goaded China into a full-blown trade war, with tariffs reaching 145% on Chinese goods, and China imposing reciprocal 125% tariffs on US goods. Additionally, Trump has imposed individualized reciprocal tariffs of up to 50% on nearly 90 specific countries; they are currently paused for 90 days before going into effect. Once the 90-day “pause” expires, the harms will only compound further. And new tariffs are being contemplated or announced nearly every day.

To justify his tariffs, Trump has declared national emergencies and extended prior declared emergencies beyond the bounds of reason. But with or without emergencies, the President does not have the power to levy tariffs under the IEEPA.

The impacts of President Trump’s dizzying array of tariff plans have already wreaked havoc on our financial systems: the U.S. stock market suffered the largest two-day loss in its history in the two days following the announcement of President Trump’s most sweeping tariffs. These actions and the near-daily threats to impose new tariffs have already inflicted and continue to inflict serious financial harms on California.

The latest complaint alleges that the Constitution expressly gives the authority to impose tariffs to Congress, not the President, and the IEEPA does not provide the required congressional authorization for Trump to impose tariffs — Congress enacted the IEEPA to limit Presidential authority and to prevent Presidential abuse of power — not to give the President these powers. The complaint asks the court to declare that tariff orders made under the purported authority of the IEEPA are unlawful and void and to halt DHS and CPB from implementing and enforcing these orders.

"Our latest survey shows that economic pressure isn’t just theoretical — it’s showing up in rent, grocery bills, and the rising costs of essentials," says Jason Pagiou, President and CEO of the Asian Business Association of San Diego.

“Californians are bracing for fallout from the impact of the President’s choices — from farmers in the Central Valley, to small businesses in Sacramento, and worried families at the kitchen table — this game the President is playing has very real consequences for Californians across our state," said Bonta.

EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news and views from an AANHPI perspective, follow me on Threads, on X or at the blog Views From the Edge.

Hmong Americans’ lawsuit alleges racist treatment by California sheriff

KRCR PHOTO

Hmong Americans protest attempt to restrict water deliveries to their properties in California.

Hmong residents of Siskiyou County in California filed a civil rights lawsuit Monday against the County Sheriff alleging "a sweeping campaign to harass and intimidate Hmong and other Asian Americans."

"In 2022, as more and more people are reckoning with systemic racism in our country, Siskiyou County officials are choosing to create a humanitarian crisis, persecute Hmong Americans and Asian Americans, and create divisions among neighbors,” said Emi Young, staff attorney at the ACLU Foundation of Northern California. 

The American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California has filed a civil rights lawsuit against Siskiyou County and its sheriff on behalf of members of the Hmong community. The complaint seeks to hold Siskiyou officials accountable for their alleged systematic racial targeting and for the violation of Asian Americans’ US and California constitutional rights, including an order prohibiting Siskiyou County and Sheriff LaRue from engaging in race, color, and ethnicity-based discrimination with safeguards to ensure that such discrimination does not continue in the future. 

The plaintiffs are represented by the ACLU Foundation of Northern California, Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus, and Covington & Burling LLP.

Siskiyou County is far from
California's urban centers.

The county has struggled for years to rein in an explosion of cannabis grows in areas like Mount Shasta Vista, many of which are owned by the Hmong. Although growing is permitted for personal use, commercial cultivation is banned in Siskiyou.

The complaint alleges that county officials “view Asian Americans as a monolithic group of which every single person is part of a violent drug cartel and blame the County’s widespread cannabis cultivation on Asian Americans in explicitly racialized terms, notwithstanding that cannabis has been grown in the County for decades,” according to the complaint.

The complaint cites former Sheriff Jon Lopey comparing the fight against illegal cannabis to war in a foreign country. The complaint also cites remarks made by Siskiyou County Supervisor Ray Haupt in a July 2020 email to a colleague in which he compared the situation to Sharia Law, referring to Islamic law based on the writings of the Quran, Islam's holy book. The majority of Hmong are not Muslims.

The situation involving Hmong farms has devolved into “complete lawlessness,” Haupt wrote. “I am fearful that we are losing a portion of our county and being turned into a no go zone, similar to what we see in foreign countries like Europe where Sharia Law has replaced local governance.”

As the complaint details, Siskiyou County officials and Sheriff Jeremiah LaRue have made their intentions explicit in public meetings and documents, characterizing Asian Americans as people “who thumb their nose at our society, at our way of life” and singling out “the Hmong residents” at a Board of Supervisors meeting before asking for a vote of “those County residents present.” 

The Sheriff’s Department targets Asian American drivers at a rate 12 times greater than the Asian American driving-age population. 

At the same time, as the region faces hotter temperatures and more extreme wildfires, Siskiyou County officials have created a humanitarian crisis that disproportionately deprives Asian American residents of water needed for health and hygiene and to protect themselves and their homes from wildfires.

“Like many of our neighbors, my husband, my son, and I love the beauty of Siskiyou County and want to enjoy a safe, healthy life with our friends and family,” said Mai Nou Vang, one of the Hmong American plaintiffs in the case who owns property in the area. 

“Last year, my family and I were driving outside of Shasta Vista and were stopped by two sheriff’s deputies," said Vang. "For a half hour, we were questioned about what we were doing and where we had come from. They searched our car without a warrant, and then finally let us go with a ticket to fix a light cover. My story isn’t unique. So many of my Asian neighbors have been stopped like this by the police while we try to go about our days, run errands, and visit loved ones.”

Rural Siskiyou County, located along California's border with Oregon, is home to fewer than 45,000 people, of whom 85% are white and 1.6% are Asian American, according to the latest US Census. Residents, most of whom are registered Republican, have attempted unsuccessfully to secede from the state to form a new state to be called Jefferson.

Many Asian American residents in Siskiyou County are Hmong and came to the US. as refugees after fighting alongside the US government in the Vietnam War. The Hmong, most of whom were farmers in their homeland, have bought land, which is relatively inexpensive in the rocky and mountainous county. 

The lawsuit filed with the Eastern District Court of California details the findings of a year-long investigation into the county’s disturbing treatment of Asian American residents, including interviews with community members, public records requests, and review of thousands of Board of Supervisors and Sheriff Department documents.

• Over 28% of traffic stops conducted by the Sheriff’s Department in 2021 were of Asian American drivers. The department stops drivers of Asian descent at a rate nearly 12 times greater than their proportion of the driving-age population.

• An Asian American in Siskiyou County is about 17 times more likely to be pulled over by the Sheriff’s Department than a white individual, and the median stop length for Asian American drivers was 56% longer than for other drivers.

• The Sheriff’s Department stops Asian Americans during the day, when a driver’s race is more readily visible, at a nearly 60% higher rate than at night.

• Several water ordinances have created a humanitarian crisis that severely impacts Asian American residents, particularly in Shasta Vista, Dorris, and Macdoel. While a judge recently issued a preliminary injunction against two of the ordinances, the county’s measures have collectively degraded community members’ health, resulted in the loss of livestock and gardens, left people unable to fend off wildfires, and forced many to leave their homes in the past year.

• Over 80% of property liens issued by the county have been issued against Asian American residents, many of which are more than double the assessed property value.

Siskiyou County dominated by forests and mountains.

“Since more Hmong residents began moving to Siskiyou County in 2015, county officials and Sheriff LaRue have orchestrated a sweeping campaign to push out the Asian American community,” said the ACLU's Young.

Earlier this year, a federal judge in Sacramento affirmed that the preliminary injunction for two of the discriminatory water ordinances must stay in place after the county attempted to end the injunction. In her ruling, the judge wrote that “the passage of time has erased neither the concerning language County officials used to describe their purposes nor the racial animosity Hmong people in Shasta Vista have faced.”

“We are a group of people who came to the United States in the late 70s as refugees because of our involvement in helping the U.S. during the Vietnam War. Many of us have since moved to Siskiyou County because we love the landscape and rural nature of the region,” said Peter Thao, Hmong community member in Siskiyou County. 

“We want to build a good rapport with the community here and the local government," Thao continued. "Hmong people are very family oriented. We are not here to cause hardship or burden to this community. I would like to see our communities understand each other better. If the local government would give us a seat at the table, we could work together to build a better relationship between our communities.”

Members of the ACLU cite that “Sharia Law” comment as further evidence of county officials’ racial animus and motivations.

The ACLU says county logs demonstrate “widespread racial profiling in traffic stops,” in the county, as well as concerted effort “to dispossess Asian Americans of their land.”

EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news and views from an AANHPI perspective, follow @DioknoEd on Twitter.

Parents of Parkland HS shooting victim sue FBI

Philip and April Schentrup claim the FBI could have done more to prevent the Parkland massacre that claimed the life of their daughter, Carmen, and 16 others.

If the FBI had followed protocol and acted on the warnings about the mental stability of the Parkland shooter, the country's deadliest school mass shooting might never have occurred, say the parents of a Filipina American victim.

Philip and April Schentrup say their daughter Carmen, a Stoneman Douglas High School senior gunned down last year, would still be alive if the FBI had not bungled the case.
The lawsuit filed last month seeks unspecified damages in a wrongful death suit.

Nikolas Cruz, 20, confessed to the massacre that occurred on Valentine's Day in 2018.  He killed 17 and wounded another 17 students and staff of the Florida school. His murder trial is scheduled for Jan. 20 next year.

Forty days before the mass shooting, the FBI received a tip saying Cruz was stockpiling weapons and threatening to shoot up the school. "I know he's going to explode," said the tipster.

CARMEN SCHENTRUP

The FBI employee who received the call never passed on the information to the FBI's Miami field office, the suit alleges.

“Before the Parkland shooting, law enforcement, including the FBI, received several warnings about Nikolas Cruz’s desire and capability to carry out a school shooting,” the Schentrup lawsuit says. “Despite the FBI’s awareness of Cruz’s gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behavior, disturbing social media posts, and the potential of him conducting a school shooting, the FBI failed to follow established protocols that would have prevented the shooting from taking place.”

The Schentrups’ lawsuit is the second leveling blame at the FBI. The parents of Parkland victim Jaime Guttenberg, 14, filed a wrongful death suit against the agency in November.

The families of other Parkland victims have filed 22 lawsuits against the Broward Sheriff’s Office and Broward School District.

On March 14th, a month after the school massacre, then acting deputy director of the FBI David Bowdich outlined before a Senate judiciary committee investigating the shooting, the missed tips the agency received about Cruz, including:

• In January 2013, the shooter's mother, Lynda Cruz, called the Sheriff’s Office after he threw her against a wall.

• In February 2016, the Sheriff’s Office got a report from a neighbor saying Cruz was posting photos of himself with guns on Instagram and saying he planned to shoot up his high school.

• In February 2017, Cruz bought the AR-15 he used in the shooting. In the year leading up to the shooting, he purchased at least five weapons, all rifles and shotguns.

• In September 2017, a Mississippi man called in a tip to the FBI saying Cruz posted a threatening comment on YouTube saying he wanted to be a school shooter. Two FBI agents interviewed the tipster the next day, but by October, the agency had closed its file on the matter.

• In November 2017, a cousin of Cruz’s mother called the Sheriff’s Office to urge the agency to seize his weapons.

• A few weeks later, a family friend called police to report a fight between Cruz and her son. She said Cruz turned violent, punched walls and left to get a gun.

• On Nov. 30, 2017, the Sheriff’s Office got a tip from a caller in Massachusetts who said she believed Cruz was stockpiling guns and knives and could be a school shooter in the making.

_________________________________________________________________

Carmen Schentrup, a Stoneman Douglas senior gunned down in one of the nation’s deadliest school shootings, would be alive today had the FBI not bungled the case, her parents claim in a new lawsuit.

Philip and April Schentrup are seeking unspecified damages in a wrongful death suit filed against the agency Friday in federal court.

Nikolas Cruz, a former student at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High, walked into the school with an AR-15 on Valentine’s Day last year, firing round after round. Carmen Schentrup was among 17 who died that day. Another 17 were wounded.

Cruz, 20, has confessed to the massacre and is awaiting trial.

One warning about the unstable young man who’d been stockpiling guns and threatening to shoot up a school came on Jan 5, 2018.

“I know he’s going to explode,” the tipster told the FBI.

Forty days later, Cruz walked into Marjory Stoneman Douglas High and “executed” Carmen Schentrup along with 16 other students and staff.

The FBI phone operator who took the tip that Cruz “was going to slip into a school and start shooting the place up” never passed it along to the agency’s Miami field office, the lawsuit says.

That fatal mistake was a clear violation of protocol — a fact acknowledged by the FBI just two days after the shooting.

The Schentrups’ lawsuit is the second leveling blame at the FBI. The parents of Parkland victim Jaime Guttenberg, 14, filed a wrongful death suit against the agency in November.

he families of other Parkland victims have filed 22 lawsuits against the Broward Sheriff’s Office and Broward School District.

“Before the Parkland shooting, law enforcement, including the FBI, received several warnings about Nikolas Cruz’s desire and capability to carry out a school shooting,” the Schentrup lawsuit says. “Despite the FBI’s awareness of Cruz’s gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behavior, disturbing social media posts, and the potential of him conducting a school shooting, the FBI failed to follow established protocols that would have prevented the shooting from taking place.”

The suit goes on to list all the warnings and tips that went ignored.

Some of the failures detailed in the lawsuit:

• In January 2013, his mother, Lynda Cruz, called the Sheriff’s Office after he threw her against a wall.
• In February 2016, the Sheriff’s Office got a report from a neighbor saying Cruz was posting photos of himself with guns on Instagram and saying he planned to shoot up his high school.
• In February 2017, Cruz bought the AR-15 he used in the shooting. In the year leading up to the shooting, he purchased at least five weapons, all rifles and shotguns.
• In September 2017, a Mississippi man called in a tip to the FBI saying Cruz posted a threatening comment on YouTube saying he wanted to be a school shooter. Two FBI agents interviewed the tipster the next day, but by October, the agency had closed its file on the matter.
• In November 2017, a cousin of Cruz’s mother called the Sheriff’s Office to urge the agency to seize his weapons.

• A few weeks later, a family friend called police to report a fight between Cruz and her son. She said Cruz turned violent, punched walls and left to get a gun.
• On Nov. 30, 2017, the Sheriff’s Office got a tip from a caller in Massachusetts who said she believed Cruz was stockpiling guns and knives and could be a school shooter in the making.

Then came the tip in January 2018, just five weeks before the shooting.

“The caller also explained that Cruz’s Instagram accounts contained photos of animals Cruz had mutilated and killed,” the lawsuit said. “She told the FBI that Cruz’s interest in killing animals, cutting them up, and posting photos of them was a red flag.”

The parents of Carmen Schentrup, a 16-year-old Fil-Am student who was killed in a mass shooting in Parkland, Florida on valentine’s day last year filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government for negligence.

The complaint alleges that the FBI ignored a tip weeks before the mass shooting that the gunman — Nikolas Cruz — was “going to slip into a school and start shooting up the place.”

17 people were killed that day at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

The Schentrup family lawyer, Robert Stein, spoke to BA about the lawsuit.

“The FBI was provided with detailed information ahead of this tragedy and was in a unique position to prevent carmen’s death. The FBI utterly failed to follow its own protocols and procedures by failing to investigate and fulfill its duty.”

The complaint alleges that the FBI got enough warnings about the confessed shooter including one the agency reportedly received just 40 days before the shooting from a woman who knew Cruz.”

The lawsuit also shows several screenshots of Cruz’s social media accounts, including the one he posted on a youtube page that was reported to the FBI.

“The information was never forwarded to a field office or to any of our state and local partners for review or action.”

On March 14th, a month after the school massacre, then acting deputy director of the FBI David Bowdich outlined before a Senate judiciary committee investigating the shooting, the missed tips the agency received about Cruz.

“The FBI could have and should have done more to investigate the information it was provided prior to the shooting.”

Despite that admission, the Schentrup faces a tough legal battle. Their lawyer said it is generally difficult to the sue the federal government.

Another parkland family filed a lawsuit against the FBI in November 2018.

Both families claim that if the agency had just followed what they were supposed to do, then their daughters would be alive today. Both lawsuits claim wrongful death damages for their losses but they do not state monetary amount.

Meanwhile, Cruz was back in court yesterday where judge Elizabeth Scherer set January 20, 2020 as the start of the murder trial.

Thai American med student joins DACA lawsuit vs. Trump administration

INSTAGRAM

Jirayut Latthivongskorn wants to change the world and improve health systems.

A THAI/AMERICAN medical student is one of the six DACA participants suing the Trump administration.

The suit, filed today (Sept. 18) in San Francisco federal court, is the first to be brought by beneficiaries of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program since U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced earlier this month that the Obama-era policy would start winding down in March 2018, according to Garcia’s lawyers.

"Today, I join as one of the co-plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the Trump administration," wrote Jirayut (“New”) Latthivongskorn in his Instagram account.

"Just like how undocumented youth stood up to fight and won the original DACA, it is critical that we, the ones directly affected, are central to our current fight," wrote Jirayut. "Excited to be able to contribute to the chance of stopping the rescission of DACA for 800,000 undocumented folks! Rest assured we will defend DACA AND call on Congress to pass a long term solution that does not further criminalize our communities."

The legal claims in all of the cases, including Garcia‘s, are similar: that the Trump administration did not follow proper administrative procedure in rescinding DACA, and that making enforcement promises to a group of people, only to revoke them, violates due process.

Jirayut was brought to the United States from Thailand when he was nine. He is now a fourth year medical student at University of California San Francisco and a master’s degree candidate in public health at Harvard. 

His DACA work authorization expires in January 2019. Jirayut's medical residency is not set to begin until a few months after that, and could be impossible if he loses his authorization to work legally.

“I have all these big ideas about how I want to change the world and change systems around health care,” he said. “The fact I might not be able to get there is troubling and frustrating.”

Since Obama authorized DACA by Executive Order in 2012, the program has provided protection from deportation and the right to work legally to nearly 800,000 young people. 

Jirayut joins five other plaintiffs, all originally from Mexico, include one licensed attorney, a therapist, a law students and two teachers:

• Dulce Garcia, a San Diego attorney, was brought to the U.S. from Mexico when she was 4, 
• Viridiana Chabolla Mendoza, a Pomona College graduate who is now a first-year law student at UC Irvine. Her family brought her from Mexico to the U.S. when she was 2.
• Norma Ramirez is a Ph.D. candidate in clinical psychology from the Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena. Since 2016, she has worked at an outpatient clinic in Monrovia, providing school- and home-based therapy to patients in English and Spanish. Her parents brought her to the U.S. from Mexico when she was 5.
• Miriam Gonzalez Avila, a teacher at Crown Preparatory Academy, an unaffiliated LAUSD charter school in the Jefferson neighborhood of Los Angeles. A 2016 UCLA graduate, she is earning a master’s degree in urban education, policy and administration from Loyola Marymount University. Her family brought her to the U.S. from Mexico when she was 6 years old.
• Saul Jimenez Suarez, a former college football player who is now a special education teacher, coach, and mentor in Los Angeles. His family brought him to the U.S. when he was 1 year old.

He graduated from the University of California-Berkeley, with a bachelor’s degree in Molecular and Cellular Biology. Throughout college, he funded his education with part-time jobs and private scholarships while staying involved in groups such as the Thai Student Association, Resident Hall Assembly, and the AB540 Coalition on campus. 

RELATED:

• Meet more Asian/American DREAMers 
• Read more about Jirayut's journey to become an activist

Off-campus, he served as a first co-chair of ASPIRE (Asian Students Promoting Immigrant Rights through Education) at Asian Law Caucus, where he advocated and fought for the passage of the federal and the CA DREAM Act of recent years. As a New American Scholar of Educators for Fair Consideration, a nonprofit organization supporting students in higher education, he shares his personal immigration experience to portray a different side of “DREAMers.”

In April of this year, Jirayut received a 2017 U.S. Public Health Service mission to "protect, promote and advance the health and safety of our Nation.

Although a majority of the DACA beneficiaries are Latino, there are about 17,000 Asian/Americans in the DACA program.

Though Asians account for a significant and growing population of undocumented immigrants in the United States, they had some of the lowest application rates to DACA. Only about 20% of the eligible Korean population applied, and only 23% of eligible Filipinos and 20% of eligible Indians applied, according to the Migration Policy Institute. But 82% of eligible Mexicans applied.

___________________________________________________________________________