Michelle Deng
Federal government shuts down following disagreements over healthcare
WASHINGTON — The United States government entered a shutdown at 12:01 a.m. on Oct. 1, after Congress failed to reach an agreement on new funding appropriations for the 2026 fiscal year. These appropriations are revised and passed annually to fund the operations of federal government agencies for the duration of the fiscal year. The government will remain in shutdown until a spending package for the 2026 fiscal year is passed.
Attempts from both sides of the aisle to end the shutdown failed on Friday. Two separate funding bills, one proposed by Democrats and the other by Republicans, did not attain the 60 votes necessary to pass the Senate.
The central point of contention between Democrats and Republicans is healthcare. Democrats are seeking a bill that guarantees that health insurance tax credits do not expire at the end of the year for low-income families, while simultaneously repealing recent Trump administration cuts to Medicaid. The Republican spending proposal is a short-term funding bill that will no longer guarantee these health insurance subsidies are available to low-income individuals. A similar stopgap measure was passed with bipartisan support in March.
Federal government employees classified as non-essential are on furlough until the shutdown ends. NBC estimated that roughly 750,000 federal workers will be on furlough. Another breakdown from USA Today showed that departments like the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Education, and the Department of Commerce had the biggest share of their employees impacted, with an estimated 89% of the EPA currently on furlough.
The White House has threatened mass layoffs if the shutdown continues. In an interview released on Thursday, President Donald Trump made it clear that he would blame layoffs resulting from the shutdown on Democrats.
“There could be firings, and that’s their fault,” he said. “I mean, we could cut projects that they wanted, favorite projects, and they’d be permanently cut.”
It is currently unclear how the shutdown will directly impact the University of California, as some student aid, patient care, and research projects are federally funded. According to EdSource, impacts on UC schools “will depend on the length of the shutdown and on guidance from federal agencies.”
Voting on a spending bill to end the shutdown will resume when the Senate is back in session on Monday, Oct. 6.
Federal judge rules threat of deportation unconstitutional
BOSTON — Senior U.S. District Court Judge William Young ruled against the Trump administration on Tuesday, finding that the threat of deportation unconstitutionally infringes upon foreign students’ right to free speech.
Young ruled that noncitizens have the same First Amendment rights as citizens. In his 161-page decision, he wrote, “We are not, and we must not become, a nation that imprisons and deports people because we are afraid of what they have to tell us.”
This lawsuit was primarily brought by the American Association of University Professors, along with several other civil rights organizations. The suit involved a nine-day-long trial in which noncitizen professors testified that they had canceled research, skipped conferences, and adjusted syllabi in fear that they could be detained or threatened with deportation. These fears, they testified, stemmed from witnessing arrests and detentions of students who expressed pro-Palestinian views.
Young’s decision concluded that the plaintiffs’ fears were reasonable, citing multiple statements from government officials. One statement Young cited from Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s Senate hearing in May said, “The bottom line is, if you are coming here to stir up trouble on our campuses, we will deny you a visa. And if you have a visa and we find you … we’ll revoke it. And we’re going to do more. There are more coming.”
According to NBC, Young’s decision also determined that both Rubio and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem “deliberately and with purposeful aforethought, did so concert their actions and those of their two departments to intentionally chill the rights to freedom of speech and peacefully to assemble.”
The significance of Young’s ruling for international students is unclear. In his ruling, he did not assign a specific remedy for the lawsuit, clarifying that the order from his ruling alone is not enough to prevent the detainment of students for their pro-Palestinian activism. A second hearing will be scheduled for lawyers from both sides of the suit to determine an appropriate solution.
San Diego joins lawsuit against Trump administration – Giselle
SAN DIEGO — Along with more than 20 other local governments in the United States, the city and county of San Diego have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration for allegedly withholding more than $350 million in Department of Homeland Security and Federal Emergency Management Agency grants.
The lawsuit alleges the federal government threatened to withhold the emergency funds unless the local governments involved complied with the measures President Donald Trump has taken on issues such as diversity, equity, and inclusion, as well as immigration enforcement. The coalition of cities is aiming for a court order that would prevent the Trump administration from allegedly unconstitutionally withholding the funds.
Heather Ferbert, the San Diego city attorney, told NBC 7 San Diego that the funds being withheld go toward natural disaster prevention, port and transit security, fire department staffing, and counterterrorism response efforts.
“Here in San Diego, our residents face real risks from wildfires, flooding, earthquakes, and other disasters,” Ferbert said. “Federal preparedness funding is meant to save lives, not advance a political agenda. These unlawful conditions jeopardize our ability to keep San Diego families safe, and we are taking action to ensure our city continues to receive the resources needed to protect our communities.”
San Diego lawsuit against Association for the City of La Jolla’s secession efforts
LA JOLLA, Calif. — On Oct. 24, Superior Court Judge Judy Bae will hold a hearing to consider the Association for the City of La Jolla’s motion to request the dismissal of a lawsuit filed in June by the City of San Diego that aims to prevent the La Jolla secession efforts.
The lawsuit challenges the San Diego County Local Agency Formation Commission, the office responsible for overseeing the La Jolla incorporation process and regulating local boundaries. The city alleges that the LAFCO inaccurately approved ACLJ’s second attempt at validating signatures acquired through a petition drive.
San Diego LAFCO released a statement on May 13 addressing the planned litigation and reinforcing their responsibility to be inclusive when reviewing proposals and remaining transparent throughout the process.
The motion filed by ACLJ on Aug. 25 claims the city’s suit is a strategic lawsuit against public participation.
According to The San Diego Union-Tribune, the ACLJ views the lawsuit as a “meritless attempt to obstruct democratic participation and silence a public interest effort through costly litigation.”
If the motion is upheld in the hearing later this month, the City of San Diego’s lawsuit will be dismissed, and the LAFCO can administer a review of the ACLJ’s application.