Teen rescued from 50-foot deep mine shaft in Northern California
Dong Xudong/Xinhua via Getty Images
(CHINA BAR, Calif.) — A 16-year-old teen was rescued from a 50-foot deep mine shaft in Northern California on Monday after the rope he was using to climb back out of the hole snapped, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
The teen was saved after attempting to explore a mine shaft located in the Auburn State Recreation Area near China Bar, officials said.
At approximately 3:27 p.m. on Monday, Placer County Fire Department and Auburn City Fire Department were dispatched to a medical rescue for a “16-year-old male stuck in a vertical mine shaft approximately 50 feet deep,” according to a press release.
The teenager and his friends traveled about 180 feet into the mine shaft and the side of the mountain to explore and rappelled 40 to 50 feet down using a household rope, Cal Fire said.
Upon their ascent back, the rope broke, and the victim fell about 30 feet back to the bottom of the shaft. He attempted to free climb his way back up, but “ultimately lost strength and positioned himself in a precarious ledge awaiting rescuers,” officials said.
Once crews arrived on the scene, the teen’s friends led rescuers to the victim. The Placer County Technical Rescue Team was able to successfully save the teen using a “lightweight, complex rope system and established air monitoring,” Cal Fire said.
The victim was immediately taken to a local trauma center for treatment.
Cal Fire applauded the Placer County rescue team as they were able to “facilitate this technical rescue in a very confined and austere environment 180 feet inside of the mountain.”
“The incident highlights the unique natural hazards ever present within our beautiful and rugged landscape in Placer County,” Cal Fire said. “Our commitment to public safety in these diverse scenarios using highly trained special operations team is paramount in our service to the public.”
The name of the rescued teenager has not yet been released.
(LOS ANGELES) — Lyle and Erik Menendez will appear at independent parole board hearings on June 13 as a part of the brothers’ bid for clemency, California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced.
“On June 13, we will have the parole hearing board recommendation,” the governor explained Tuesday on his podcast, “This is Gavin Newsom.” “That independent analysis will help guide the decision-making that my office is independently reviewing as it relates to the clemency application.”
The June hearings will follow the 90-day independent risk assessment that Newsom announced two weeks ago. He is ordering the parole board to conduct the assessment to determine whether the brothers pose “an unreasonable risk to the public” if released.
The governor wants an assessment of “the applicant’s current risk level, the impact of a commutation on victims and survivors, the applicant’s self-development and conduct since the offense, and if the applicant has made use of available rehabilitative programs, addressed treatment needs, and mitigated risk factors for reoffending,” his office said in a statement.
Newsom stressed on his podcast Tuesday that his clemency decision will only be “influenced by the facts.”
Celebrity does have “an impact, but in what direction does it weigh?” Newsom said. “Sometimes it’s used actually against people, because they’re so high profile, they’re actually held to a higher level of scrutiny and standards. At the same time, you don’t want that celebrity also to influence on the other side.”
“That’s why I move forward with the Board of Parole hearings to independently review with a group of experts — forensic psychologists and others — the facts of this case,” he said.
Newsom said he has not watched Ryan Murphy’s fictional series, “Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story,” which premiered on Netflix in September 2024 and brought new attention to the infamous case.
“I’ve seen a few clips here and there on social media,” he said. “I don’t intend to watch these series because I don’t want to be influenced by them. I just want to be influenced by the facts.”
“I’m obviously familiar with the Menendez brothers, just through the news over the course of many decades,” Newsom added. “But not to the degree that many others are because of all of these documentaries and all of the attention they’ve received. So that won’t bias my independent and objective review.”
Lyle and Erik Menendez are serving life in prison without the possibility of parole for the 1989 murders of their parents Jose and Kitty Menendez. Over 20 of their relatives are pushing for their release after 35 years behind bars.
Besides clemency, the brothers are pursuing two other paths to freedom: resentencing and a petition to review new evidence.
Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman announced Monday that he’s opposed to resentencing, arguing the brothers hadn’t taken responsibility for their actions and calling their claims of self-defense part of a litany of “lies.”
Because the “brothers persist in telling these lies for the last over 30 years about their self-defense defense and persist in insisting that they did not suborn any perjury or attempt to suborn perjury, then they do not meet the standards for resentencing,” Hochman said at a news conference.
Hochman’s decision is an about-face from his predecessor, George Gascón, who announced in October that he supported resentencing for the brothers. Gascón praised the work Lyle and Erik Menendez did behind bars to rehabilitate themselves and help other inmates.
Newsom said on his podcast that Hochman’s decision won’t impact the clemency process.
The final decision on resentencing is made by the judge; a hearing is set for March 20 and 21.
Hochman is also opposed to the brothers’ habeas corpus petition, which they filed in 2023 for a review of two new pieces of evidence not presented at trial: a letter Erik Menendez wrote to his cousin eight months before the murders detailing his alleged abuse from his father, and allegations from a former boy band member who revealed in 2023 that he was raped by Jose Menendez.
Hochman announced last month that he’s asked the court to deny the habeas corpus petition, arguing the new evidence isn’t credible or admissible.
ABC News’ Jenna Harrison contributed to this report.
(NEW YORK) — A New York resident making s’mores in their backyard is suspected of accidentally igniting a series of wildfires over the weekend that swept through hundreds of acres of the Pine Barrens region of Long Island, authorities said Monday.
Suffolk County Police Commissioner Kevin Catalina said the “operating theory” is that a fire was started at about 9:30 a.m. ET Saturday when a resident used cardboard to start a fire to make s’mores, a confection that includes toasted marshmallows and chocolate sandwiched between graham crackers.
“The individual making s’mores was unable to get the fire lit due to the winds, but they used cardboard to initially light that fire,” Catalina said during a news conference on Monday. “The person subsequently discovers that the fire does ignite in the backyard area and all goes up in fire.”
Catalina said the initial fire was extinguished by 10:30 a.m., but investigators believe embers blew about an eighth of a mile southeast of the s’mores fire and started a second blaze just before 1 p.m. in the Manorville community of Suffolk County.
Northwest winds of up to 45 mph quickly spread embers from Manorville, igniting a fire in Eastport and another fire in the publicly protected Pine Barrens region of West Hampton, according to Catalina.
“It was initially reported that there were four separate fires, or reported at one time,” Catalina said. “All of those fires are in a direct line with the strong northwest wind that was blowing that day. And it is believed that the embers from each fire traveled and continuously started more fires. So that is the operating theory right now.”
Catalina said the department has 25 arson investigators probing the blaze to determine the exact cause of the fire, but added, “So far, our investigation is pointing strongly toward an accidental origin for Saturday’s fires.”
The combined fires burned about 600 acres of wildland and prompted New York Gov. Kathy Hochul to declare a state of emergency. At least two commercial structures were damaged, officials said.
Suffolk County Executive Edward P. Romaine said Monday that two volunteer firefighters were injured battling the blazes on Saturday, with one being airlifted to Stony Brook Hospital in Stony Brook with second-degree burns to the face. The other hospitalized firefighter suffered a non-life-threatening head injury, Romaine said.
The fires in Suffolk County are “100% contained,” Amanda Lefton, the acting commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, said. Firefighters will remain on-scene over the next few days to prevent any spot fires from igniting, Lefton said.
Romaine said that at one point during Saturday’s blazes, firefighters feared the blaze would jump Sunrise Highway and spread into the more populated communities of Suffolk County.
He said the fire was fueled by hundreds of dead pine trees in the Pine Barrens region.
“Without the combined efforts of everyone involved, we would not have been able to stop this fire,” Romaine said. “This was a fire that could have been far more serious than it was.”
More than 600 firefighters from 80 volunteer Suffolk County fire departments responded to the blaze, battling flames and smoke visible from as far away as Connecticut, Romaine said.
(SEATTLE) — A federal judge in Seattle has signed a temporary restraining order blocking President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship.
U.S. District Judge John Coughenour on Thursday heard a request made by four Democratic-led states to issue a temporary restraining order against the executive order signed by Trump that purports to limit birthright citizenship — long guaranteed by the 14th Amendment — to people who have at least one parent who is a United States citizen or permanent resident.
“I have been on the bench for over four decades,” said Judge Coughenour, who was nominated to the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1981. “I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as it is here. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order.”
“In your opinion, is this executive order constitutional?” he asked DOJ attorney Brett Shumate.
“Yes, we think it is,” Shumate said, drawing the judge’s rebuke.
“I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar can state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order. It boggles my mind,” Coughenour said. “Where were the lawyers when this decision was being made?”
Shumate implored Coughenour to hold off on blocking the order, saying that it does not take effect until Feb. 19.
“It’s enough to say there is no imminent harm that the states will incur as a result of this order,” Shumate said. “We urge the court not to grant any temporary order today on the merits. What makes sense is to have a full briefing on the preliminary injunction.”
“Births cannot be paused while the court considers this case,” said Lane Polozola, an attorney representing the state attorneys general, who said Trump’s executive order attempts to change a part of the Constitution that is “off limits” after being settled across a century of legal precedent.
Judge Coughenour appeared convinced, ending the hearing by saying that he signed the temporary restraining order and that he would consider whether to grant a long-term injunction over the coming weeks.
Coughenour’s order temporarily enjoins Trump and any federal employee from enforcing or implementing the executive order.
“The Plaintiff States have also shown that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,” Coughenour wrote, citing the costs of medical care, social services, and administrative work encountered by the four states who sued Trump.
“The balance of equities tips toward the Plaintiff States and the public interest strongly weighs in favor of entering temporary relief,” the order said.
Thursday’s ruling was the first legal test of Trump’s executive order reinterpreting the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship, which Trump long promised on the campaign trail. The executive action is expected to spark a lengthy legal challenge that could define the president’s sweeping immigration agenda.
Democratic attorneys general from 22 states and two cities have sued Trump over the executive order, and the president faces at least five separate lawsuits over the policy.
In an interview with ABC News after the hearing, Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown said he plans to continue fighting the executive order if the Trump administration appeals to a higher court.
“I don’t think it ends here,” Brown said. “First and foremost, there are other cases being brought across the country, and so those cases will continue to move forward, and this president and this administration certainly has a propensity to keep these fights going, and so I anticipate that will happen moving forward.”
Coughenour scheduled Thursday’s in-person hearing in the case brought by the attorneys general of Arizona, Oregon, Washington and Illinois. In a federal complaint filed on Tuesday, the four attorneys general argued that Trump’s policy would unlawfully strip at least 150,000 newborn children each year of citizenship entitled to them by federal law and the 14th Amendment.
“The Plaintiff States will also suffer irreparable harm because thousands of children will be born within their borders but denied full participation and opportunity in American society,” the lawsuit says. “Absent a temporary restraining order, children born in the Plaintiff States will soon be rendered undocumented, subject to removal or detention, and many stateless.”
The lawsuit argues that enforcement of Trump’s executive order would cause irreparable harm to the children born from undocumented parents by preventing them from enjoying their right to “full participation and opportunity in American society.”
“They will lose their right to vote, serve on juries, and run for certain offices,” the complaint says. “And they will be placed into lifelong positions of instability and insecurity as part of a new underclass in the United States.”
Lawyers for the Department of Justice, now under new leadership, opposed the request for a temporary restraining order in a court filing Wednesday.
Intended to take effect next month, Trump’s executive order seeks to reinterpret the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship by arguing a child born in the United States to an undocumented mother cannot receive citizenship unless his or her father is a citizen or green card holder.
While most countries confer a child’s citizenship based on their parents, the United States and more than two dozen countries, including Canada and Mexico, follow the principle of jus soli or “right of the soil.”
Following the Civil War, the United States codified jus soli through the passage of the 14th Amendment, repudiating the Supreme Court’s finding in Dred Scott v. Sanford that African Americans were ineligible for citizenship.
“President Trump and the federal government now seek to impose a modern version of Dred Scott. But nothing in the Constitution grants the President, federal agencies, or anyone else authority to impose conditions on the grant of citizenship to individuals born in the United States,” the states’ lawsuit argued.
The Supreme Court further enshrined birthright citizenship in 1898 when it found that the San Francisco-born son of Chinese immigrants was an American citizen despite the Chinese Exclusion Act restricting immigration from China and prohibiting Chinese Americans from becoming naturalized citizens.
By seeking to end birthright citizenship, Trump’s executive order centers on the same phrase within the 14th Amendment — “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” — that the Supreme Court considered in 1898. Trump’s executive order argues that text of the 14th Amendment excludes children born of parents who are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, such as people who are unlawfully in the U.S.
While legal scholars have expressed skepticism about the legality of Trump’s executive order, the lawsuit could set the stage for a lengthy legal battle that ends up before the Supreme Court.
