More than 800,000 drivers for ride-hailing companies in California will soon be able to join a union and bargain collectively for better wages and benefits under a measure signed Friday by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Supporters said the new law will open a path for the largest expansion of private sector collective bargaining rights in the state’s history. The legislation is a significant compromise in the yearslong battle between labor unions and tech companies.

California is the second state where Uber and Lyft drivers can unionize as independent contractors. Massachusetts voters passed a ballot referendum in November allowing unionization, while drivers in Illinois and Minnesota are pushing for similar rights.

Newsom announced the signing at an unrelated news conference at University of California, Berkeley. The new law will give drivers “dignity and a say about their future,” he said.

The new law is part of an agreement made in September between Newsom, state lawmakers and the Service Employees International Union, along with rideshare companies Uber and Lyft. In exchange, Newsom also signed a measure supported by Uber and Lyft to significantly cut the companies’ insurance requirements for accidents caused by underinsured drivers.

Uber and Lyft fares in California are consistently higher than in other parts of the U.S. because of insurance requirements, the companies say. Uber has said that nearly one-third of every ride fare in the state goes toward paying for state-mandated insurance.

Labor unions and tech companies have fought for years over drivers’ rights. In July of last year, the California Supreme Court ruled that app-based ride-hailing and delivery services like Uber and Lyft can continue treating their drivers as independent contractors not entitled to benefits like overtime pay, paid sick leave and unemployment insurance. A 2019 law mandated that Uber and Lyft provide drivers with benefits, but voters reversed it at the ballot in 2020.

The collective bargaining measure now allows rideshare workers in California to join a union while still being classified as independent contractors and requires gig companies to bargain in good faith. The new law doesn’t apply to drivers for delivery apps like DoorDash.

The insurance measure will reduce the coverage requirement for accidents caused by uninsured or underinsured drivers from $1 million to $60,000 per individual and $300,000 per accident.

The two measures “together represent a compromise that lowers costs for riders while creating stronger voices for drivers —demonstrating how industry, labor, and lawmakers can work together to deliver real solutions,” Ramona Prieto, head of public policy for California at Uber, said in a statement.

Rideshare Drivers United, a Los Angeles-based advocacy group of 20,000 drivers, said the collective bargaining law isn’t strong enough to give workers a fair contract. The group wanted to require the companies to report its data on pay to the state.

New York City drivers’ pay increased after the city started requiring the companies to report how much an average driver earns, the group said.

“Drivers really need the backing of the state to ensure that not only is a wage proposal actually going to help drivers, but that there is progress in drivers’ pay over the years,” said Nicole Moore, president of Rideshare Drivers United.

Other drivers said the legislation will provide more job safety and benefits.

Many who support unionization said they have faced a slew of issues, including being “deactivated” from their apps without an explanation or fair appeals process when a passenger complains.

“Drivers have had no way to fight back against the gig companies taking more and more of the passenger fare, or to challenge unfair deactivations that cost us our livelihoods,” Ana Barragan, a gig driver from Los Angeles, said in a statement. “We’ve worked long hours, faced disrespect, and had no voice, just silence on the other end of the app. But now, with the right to organize a strong, democratic union, I feel hope.”

New Orleans Mayor LaToya Cantrell pleaded not guilty Wednesday to conspiracy, fraud and obstruction charges stemming from an alleged romantic relationship with her bodyguard.

The Democrat appeared in federal court for the first time since a grand jury last month returned an 18-count indictment against Cantrell and her bodyguard, Jeffrey Vappie, outlining what prosecutors described as their yearslong scheme to conceal an affair while the two traveled, wined and dined together on taxpayers’ dime.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby ordered the mayor to surrender her passport and restricted her travel, instructing her to seek approval from probation officers to leave southeast Louisiana. Roby also told Cantrell she was not allowed to be in contact with Vappie.

Vappie has already pleaded not guilty to charges of wire fraud and making false statements after he was indicted in July 2024. He is scheduled to appear in court Friday for the additional charges.

Cantrell, the first female mayor in New Orleans’ 300-year history, was elected twice but now becomes the city’s first mayor to be charged while in office in a state with a reputation for public corruption. She has only four months before she leaves office under term limits.

The mayor once known for her outspoken persona has kept quiet about the charges in the weeks since the 18-count indictment against her and Vappie was announced in mid-August. She did not acknowledge the indictment during public appearances to commemorate the 20th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina late last month.

While walking into the court building, Cantrell remained silent as a mob of reporters pressed her with questions. After the arraignment, her attorney, Eddie Castaing, declined to comment on the case but said it would not affect the mayor’s ability to govern the city.

“She can continue to work with city employees, she just couldn’t talk about the case so that’s not going to impede any of the city operations, so it’s business as usual,” Castaing said.

Cantrell, who exited court through a side door to avoid reporters, was already receding into the background of city affairs over the past year and offered no apparent resistance to President Donald Trump’s suggestion earlier this month to send the National Guard and federal agents to New Orleans even as other Democrats bristled.

She’s also been cast as a pariah by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner, who announced on Sept. 3 that Cantrell was suspended from involvement in federal transactions with HUD. The City Council issued a statement last week saying it had reassured the Housing Authority of New Orleans and the Office of Community Development that other city officials could sign federal contracts instead.

At times, she and her allies have said the blowback she is experiencing is tinged by double standards she faces as a Black woman. Cantrell said earlier this year, before to the indictment, that she has faced “very disrespectful, insulting, in some cases kind of unimaginable” treatment.

Cantrell and Vappie used WhatsApp for more than 15,000 messages, where they professed their love and plotted to harass a citizen who helped expose their relationship, delete evidence, make false statements to FBI agents “and ultimately to commit perjury before a federal grand jury,” acting U.S. Attorney Michael Simpson said. Vappie’s 14 trips with Cantrell cost taxpayers $70,000, not including Cantrell’s own travel costs, according to the indictment.

In a WhatsApp exchange, the indictment says, Vappie recalled accompanying Cantrell to Scotland in October 2021 on a dreamy trip “where it all started.”

Cantrell, whose husband died in 2023, has denied having anything more than a professional relationship with Vappie. She lashed out at associates who raised questions about the amount of time she spent with her bodyguard, including on wine-tasting trips and in a city-owned apartment, court records show.

Cantrell joins the ranks of more than 100 people brought up on corruption charges in Louisiana in the past two decades, said Rafael Goyeneche, a former prosecutor who is president of the Metropolitan Crime Commission, a watchdog group.

An executive order signed by President Donald Trump late Thursday aims to give political appointees power over the billions of dollars in grants awarded by federal agencies. Scientists say it threatens to undermine the process that has helped make the U.S. the world leader in research and development.

The order requires all federal agencies, including FEMA, the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health, to appoint officials responsible for reviewing federal funding opportunities and grants, so that they “are consistent with agency priorities and the national interest.”

It also requires agencies to make it so that current and future federal grants can be terminated at any time — including during the grant period itself.

Agencies cannot announce new funding opportunities until the new protocols are in place, according to the order. The Trump administration said these changes are part of an effort to “strengthen oversight” and “streamline agency grantmaking.” Scientists say the order will cripple America’s scientific engine by placing control over federal research funds in the hands of people who are influenced by politics and lack relevant expertise.

“This is taking political control of a once politically neutral mechanism for funding science in the U.S.,” said Joseph Bak-Coleman, a scientist studying group decision-making at the University of Washington.

The changes will delay grant review and approval, slowing “progress for cures and treatments that patients and families across the country urgently need,” said the Association of American Medical Colleges in a statement.

The administration has already terminated thousands of research grants at agencies like the NSF and NIH, including on topics like transgender health, vaccine hesitancy, misinformation and diversity, equity and inclusion.

The order could affect emergency relief grants doled out by FEMA, public safety initiatives funded by the Department of Justice and public health efforts supported by the Centers for Disease Control. Experts say the order is likely to be challenged in court.

Two Colorado deputies have been disciplined for violating state law by helping federal agents make immigration arrests, and their sheriff says officers from other agencies have done the same.

One of the deputies, Alexander Zwinck, was sued by Colorado’s attorney general last week, after his cooperation with federal immigration agents on a drug task force was revealed following the June arrest of a college student from Brazil with an expired visa.

Following an internal investigation, a second Mesa County Sheriff’s Office deputy and task force member, Erik Olson, was also found to have shared information. The two deputies used a Signal chat to relay information to federal agents, according to documents released Wednesday by the sheriff’s office.

Zwinck was placed on three weeks of unpaid leave, and Olson was given two weeks of unpaid leave, Mesa County Sheriff Todd Rowell said in a statement. Both were removed from the task force.

Two supervisors also were disciplined. One was suspended without pay for two days, and another received a letter of reprimand. A third supervisor received counseling.

State laws push back against Trump crackdown

The lawsuit and disciplinary actions come as lawmakers in Colorado and other Democratic-led states have crafted legislation intended to push back against President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.

Since Trump took office, pro-immigrant bills have advanced through legislatures in Illinois, Vermont, California, Connecticut and other states. The measures include stronger protections for immigrants in housing, employment and police encounters.

Trump has enlisted hundreds of state and local law enforcement agencies to help identify immigrants in the U.S. illegally and detain them for potential deportation. The Republican also relaxed longtime rules restricting immigration enforcement near schools, churches and hospitals.

Zwinck was sued under a new state law signed by Gov. Jared Polis about two weeks before the arrest of the student from Brazil. It bars local government employees including law enforcement from sharing identifying information about people with federal immigration officials. Previously, only state agencies were barred from doing that. It’s one of a series of laws limiting the state’s involvement in immigration enforcement passed over the years that has drawn criticism and a lawsuit from the federal government.

The U.S. Department of Justice has also sued Illinois and New York, as well as several cities in those states and New Jersey, alleging their policies violate the U.S. Constitution or federal immigration laws.

Officers say they were following established procedures

Zwinck and Olson told officials they thought they were operating according to long-standing procedures.

However, the internal investigation found they had both received and read two emails prior to the passage of the new law about previous limits on cooperation with immigration officials. The most recent was sent on Jan. 30, 2025, after an official for Homeland Security Investigations, part of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, had asked state and local law enforcement officers at a law enforcement meeting to contact HSI or ICE if they arrested a person for a violent crime who was believed not to be a citizen, the investigation documents said. The email said not to contact HSI or ICE.

Zwinck said he didn’t know about the new law and was not interested in immigration enforcement.

“When I was out there, I wanted to find drugs, guns and bad guys,” Zwinck said at a July 23 disciplinary hearing. “And sending that information to HSI they provided the ability to give me real time background information on the person I was in contact with,” he said.

Olson, who said he had been with the sheriff’s office 18 years, testified at his disciplinary hearing that it was “standard practice” to send information up to federal agents during traffic stops.

“It was routine for ICE to show up on the back end of a traffic stop to do their thing,” Olson said. “I truly thought what we were doing was condoned by our supervision and lawful.”

A lawyer at a law firm listed as representing both deputies, Michael Lowe, did not immediately return a telephone call or email seeking comment.

Rowell said drug task force members from other law enforcement agencies, including the Colorado State Patrol, also shared information with immigration agents on the Signal chat. The state patrol denied the claim.

The sheriff faulted Attorney General Phil Weiser for filing the lawsuit against Zwinck before a local internal investigation was complete. He called on the Democrat, who is running for governor, to drop it.

“As it stands, the lawsuit filed by the Attorney General’s Office sends a demoralizing message to law enforcement officers across Colorado — that the law may be wielded selectively and publicly for maximum political effect rather than applied fairly and consistently,” he said.

Weiser said last week that he was investigating whether other officers in the chat violated the law.

Spokesperson Lawrence Pacheco said Weiser was presented with evidence of a “blatant violation of state law” and had to act.

“The attorney general has a duty to enforce state laws and protect Coloradans and he’ll continue to do so,” Pacheco said.

Federal immigration judges fired by the Trump administration are filing appeals, pursuing legal action and speaking out in an unusually public campaign to fight back.

More than 50 immigration judges — from senior leaders to new appointees — have been fired since Donald Trump assumed the presidency for the second time. Normally bound by courtroom decorum, many are now unrestrained in describing terminations they consider unlawful and why they believe they were targeted.

Their suspected reasons include gender discrimination, decisions on immigration cases played up by the Trump administration and a courthouse tour with the Senate’s No. 2 Democrat.

“I cared about my job and was really good at it,” Jennifer Peyton, a former supervising judge told The Associated Press this week. “That letter that I received, the three sentences, explained no reason why I was fired.”

Peyton, who received the notice while on a July Fourth family vacation, was appointed judge in 2016. She considered it her dream job. Peyton was later named assistant chief immigration judge in Chicago, helping to train, mentor and oversee judges. She was a visible presence in the busy downtown court, greeting outside observers.

She cited top-notch performance reviews and said she faced no disciplinary action. Peyton said she’ll appeal through the Merit Systems Protection Board, an independent government agency Trump has also targeted.

Peyton’s theories about why she was fired include appearing on a “bureaucrat watchdog list” of people accused by a right-wing organization of working against the Trump agenda. She also questions a courthouse tour she gave to Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois in June.

Durbin blasted Peyton’s termination as an “abuse of power,” saying he’s visited before as part of his duties as a publicly-elected official.

The nation’s immigration courts — with a backlog of about 3.5 million cases — have become a key focus of Trump’s hard-line immigration enforcement efforts. The firings are on top of resignations, early retirements and transfers, adding up to 106 judges gone since January, according to the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, which represents judges. There are currently about 600 immigration judges.

Several of those fired, including Peyton, have recently done a slew of interviews on local Chicago television stations and with national outlets, saying they now have a platform for their colleagues who remain on the bench.

“The ones that are left are feeling threatened and very uncertain about their future,” said Matt Biggs, the union’s president.

Carla Espinoza, a Chicago immigration judge since 2023, was fired as she was delivering a verdict this month. Her notice said she’d be dismissed at the end of her two-year probationary period with the Executive Office for Immigration Review.

President Donald Trump says he is considering “taking away” the U.S. citizenship of a longtime rival, actress and comedian Rosie O’Donnell, despite a decades-old Supreme Court ruling that expressly prohibits such an action by the government.

“Because of the fact that Rosie O’Donnell is not in the best interests of our Great Country, I am giving serious consideration to taking away her Citizenship,” Trump wrote in a social media post on Saturday. He added that O’Donnell, who moved to Ireland in January, should stay in Ireland “if they want her.”

The two have criticized each other publicly for years, an often bitter back-and-forth that predates Trump’s involvement in politics. In recent days, O’Donnell on social media denounced Trump and recent moves by his administration, including the signing of a massive GOP-backed tax breaks and spending cuts plan.

It’s just the latest threat by Trump to revoke the citizenship of people with whom he has publicly disagreed, most recently his former adviser and one-time ally, Elon Musk.

But O’Donnell’s situation is notably different from Musk, who was born in South Africa. O’Donnell was born in the United States and has a constitutional right to U.S. citizenship. The U.S. State Department notes on its website that U.S. citizens by birth or naturalization may relinquish U.S. nationality by taking certain steps – but only if the act is performed voluntary and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship.

Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, noted the Supreme Court ruled in a 1967 case that the Fourteen Amendment of the Constitution prevents the government from taking away citizenship.

“The president has no authority to take away the citizenship of a native-born U.S. citizen,” Frost said in an email Saturday. “In short, we are nation founded on the principle that the people choose the government; the government cannot choose the people.”

O’Donnell moved to Ireland after Trump defeated Vice President Kamala Harris to win his second term. She has said she’s in the process of obtaining Irish citizenship based on family lineage.

Responding to Trump Saturday, O’Donnell wrote on social media that she had upset the president and “add me to the list of people who oppose him at every turn.”

The Supreme Court announced Monday it will hear an appeal from Chevron, Exxon and other oil and gas companies that lawsuits seeking compensation for coastal land loss and environmental degradation in Louisiana should be heard in federal court.

The companies are appealing a 2024 decision by a federal appeals court that kept the lawsuits in state courts, allowing them to move to trial after more than a decade in limbo.

A southeast Louisiana jury then ordered Chevron to pay upwards of $740 million to clean up damage to the state’s coastline. The verdict reached in April was the first of dozens of lawsuits filed in 2013 against leading oil and gas companies in Louisiana alleging they violated state environmental laws for decades.

While plaintiffs’ attorneys say the appeal encompasses at least 10 cases, Chevron disagrees and says the court’s ruling could have broader implications for additional lawsuits.

Chevron argues that because it and other companies began oil production and refining during World War II as a federal contractor, these cases should be heard in federal court, perceived to be friendlier to businesses.

But the plaintiffs’ attorneys — representing the Plaquemines and Jefferson Parish governments — say the appeal is the companies’ latest stall tactic to avoid accountability. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit already rejected similar arguments from Chevron.

“It’s more delay, they’re going to fight till the end and we’re going to continue to fight as well,” said John Carmouche, a trial attorney in the Chevron case who is behind the other lawsuits. He noted that the companies’ appeal “doesn’t address the merits of the case.”

Chevron’s counsel, Paul Clement said in a statement that the company was “pleased” with the Supreme Court’s decision. Exxon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The court’s decision to hear the appeal offers the chance for “fair and consistent application of the law” and will “help preserve legal stability for the industry that fuels America’s economy,” said Tommy Faucheux, president of the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil & Gas Association, in an emailed statement.

In April, jurors in Plaquemines Parish — a sliver of land straddling the Mississippi River into the Gulf — found that energy giant Texaco, acquired by Chevron in 2001, had for decades violated Louisiana regulations governing coastal resources by failing to restore wetlands impacted by dredging canals, drilling wells and billions of gallons of wastewater dumped into the marsh.

“No company is big enough to ignore the law, no company is big enough to walk away scot-free,” Carmouche told jurors during closing arguments.

Louisiana’s coastal parishes have lost more than 2,000 square miles (5,180 square kilometers) of land over the past century, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, which has also identified oil and gas infrastructure as a significant cause. The state could lose another 3,000 square miles (7,770 square kilometers) in the coming decades, its coastal protection agency has warned.

Chevron’s attorneys had argued that land loss in Louisiana was caused by other factors and that the company should not be held liable for its actions prior to the enactment of a 1980 environmental law requiring companies to obtain permits and restore land they had used.

The fact that the lawsuits had been delayed for so long due to questions of jurisdiction was “bordering on absurd,” the late-federal judge Martin Leach-Cross Feldman remarked in 2022 during oral arguments in one of the lawsuits, according to court filings. He added: “Frankly, I think it’s kind of shameful.”

Louisiana’s Republican Gov. Jeff Landry, a longtime oil and gas industry supporter, nevertheless made the state a party to the lawsuits during his tenure as attorney general.

“Virtually every federal court has rejected Chevron’s attempt to avoid liability for knowingly and intentionally violating state law,” Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said in a statement. “I’ll fight Chevron in state or federal court—either way, they will not win.”