According to the New York Post, the household account bought 10,000 Bloom Energy shares and 100 call options on July 24, when the stock closed at $184.89 per share. That day's purchases carried a combined minimum value of $2 million, with the shares alone valued between $1 million and $5 million and the options between $1 million and $5 million. Four days later, on July 28, the account added 5,000 more shares and 100 additional call options, a combined purchase worth $1 million to $2 million, as Bloom Energy's stock closed at $166.84 per share that day.

The call options give the household the right to buy Bloom Energy shares at a fixed $100 strike price before they expire on June 17, 2027, according to official House periodic transaction records filed on August 21, 2026. Nancy Pelosi signed that disclosure report herself, though a spokesperson for the speaker maintains that she does not own any stocks and has, per the report, no knowledge or subsequent involvement in any transactions made by her husband.

A Stock on a Historic Run

Bloom Energy's timing looks remarkable in hindsight. The stock has increased more than 400% over the past 12 months and more than 100% so far in 2026, and it has climbed nearly 40% in just the five days before September 8, according to the same disclosure report cited by the Post. By September 8, shares were trading at $282.50, up sharply from the $166.84 close on July 28 when the household made its second round of purchases.

The rally accelerated after Bloom Energy reported extremely upbeat second-quarter earnings on July 28, 2026 — the same day as the household's second purchase. The San Jose company posted revenue of $1.07 billion, a 165.5% year-over-year jump that beat analyst estimates by nearly 29%, and raised its full-year revenue outlook to between $3.9 billion and $4.2 billion, according to PrimeXBT. Bloom Energy's solid-oxide fuel cell systems generate power on-site for AI data centers and can be deployed in three to four months, compared with four to seven years for traditional utility grid expansion, per NAI500 — a speed advantage that has made the company a go-to power source as data center operators race to bypass utility connection queues. According to the Department of Energy's Microgrids R&D Strategic Plan, microgrids can help rapidly interconnect economically important new loads such as datacenters by reducing their reliance on the grid.

The momentum culminated on September 4, when S&P Dow Jones Indices announced Bloom Energy would officially join the S&P 500 before trading opens on September 21, replacing Molson Coors Beverage Company. The company's market capitalization now sits near $83 billion, comfortably clearing the roughly $22.7 billion threshold S&P set under its updated inclusion criteria this year, which also require sustained positive cumulative quarterly profitability.

Intel and a San Francisco Hotel Deal, Too

The same August 21 filing showed the Pelosi household didn't stop at Bloom Energy. On July 24, the account also purchased 10,000 shares of Intel Corporation and 50 Intel call options with a $50 strike price, also expiring June 17, 2027 — a broader tech-options strategy executed the same day as the Bloom Energy buy.

The filing additionally disclosed a local San Francisco investment of $500,001 to $1 million made on July 27, 2026, in REOF XXV, LLC, an entity acquiring and restoring a luxury hotel property in the city. Paul Pelosi has previously invested in multiple commercial real estate entities around the region.

Denials and a Growing Congressional Trading Debate

Nancy Pelosi has denied accusations of insider trading and says she supports a ban on congressional stock trading, even as her portfolio has drawn outsized attention — it returned 65% in 2023, and Paul Pelosi made $38 million worth of stock trades in the weeks before President Trump's 2025 inauguration. An app called the Pelosi Tracker, which follows the trading activity of Nancy Pelosi and other members of Congress, has more than 20,000 copiers and estimates $44 million in copier trades tied to following her disclosures.

The disclosure lands amid a broader legislative push on the issue. The U.S. House passed H.R. 7008, the Stop Insider Trading Act, on July 22, 2026, in a 232–198 vote that would bar lawmakers and immediate family members from buying individual stocks and require seven-to-14-day public notice before selling existing holdings, according to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Rules. Hoodline previously covered the House vote in a story on Ann Wagner's disclosed net worth. Separately, a Republican-led bill from Senator Josh Hawley, introduced in early 2023 and known as the Pelosi Act — formally the Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments Act — has also pushed for tighter restrictions, while the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs voted 8 to 7 in 2025 to advance a modified ETHICS Act requiring lawmakers, the president, vice president and their spouses to fully divest from individual stocks by March 31, 2027, according to the Campaign Legal Center.

Watchdogs argue existing law offers little deterrence. The House Committee on Ethics identifies STOCK Act filings as Periodic Transaction Reports, or PTRs. The 2012 STOCK Act requires members of Congress and their families to disclose trades over $1,000 within 45 days of a transaction, or 30 days of notification, whichever comes first, but late-filing penalties start at just $200 for a first offense. A United States Senate Select Committee on Ethics report lists a $200 penalty for late filing of a financial disclosure report. Congressional stock disclosures have become a recurring storyline this year, with Hoodline reporting on similar scrutiny facing Representative Kelly Morrison, who moved to divest private stakes after ethics heat, and Representative Tony Wied's disclosed $1.3 million in February trades.

Process server Mark Andrews placed the documents directly in front of Ortiz during the meeting, an encounter captured on video by independent reporter Susan Bassi and reported by San José Spotlight. The footage of the moment circulated widely online afterward. The documents included a subpoena for Ortiz's personal finance records and an order for him to appear at an October 5 hearing intended to bring his assets to light, according to the outlet.

How a Restraining Order Fight Turned Into a $54,000 Bill

The underlying dispute traces back to December 2023, when Ortiz filed a civil suit seeking a restraining order against Robert Saenz, the owner of the ESSJ Times Instagram account, which at the time had more than 54,000 followers covering current affairs and public safety-related incidents in San Jose. Ortiz said Saenz's posts, which included derogatory statements and an image of Ortiz's face with the words “brown puppet” superimposed, put his safety and his girlfriend's safety at risk. Ortiz also said posts falsely accusing him of grooming or sexualizing children drew a wave of negative comments.

Santa Clara County Superior Court Commissioner Johanna Thai Van Dat granted Ortiz's request, and the resulting restraining order restricted Saenz from approaching Ortiz or his girlfriend and blocked him from making further defamatory statements about the pair. Per the same reporting, the order restricted Saenz's contact with Ortiz and his girlfriend and barred further defamatory statements before Judge Eric Geffon struck down the lawsuit in an April 2024 ruling, finding that Saenz's comments were constitutionally protected speech and overturning the restraining order.

The dispute had ignited the fall before, when Saenz posted a video on the account criticizing a “Drag Queen story time” event promoted by another councilmember, according to Reason Magazine. Ortiz responded by publicly reporting the account for hate speech and urging his followers to flag it. Saenz, for his part, wrote that he spoke for “especially the majority of the community that is against grooming our children” and claimed Ortiz does not represent San Jose's Latino and Mexican community.

Appeal Confirms Fee Order as Deadline Looms

California's Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 — the state's anti-SLAPP statute, enacted in 1992 — provides that a prevailing defendant is entitled to fees and costs, subject to statutory exceptions, according to FindLaw. Once Judge Geffon determined Saenz's posts were protected political commentary, the statute required Ortiz to cover his opponent's attorney's fees. The California Court of Appeal affirmed that outcome in January, finding that Saenz's posts encouraging Ortiz's removal from office amounted to protected political speech.

Ortiz has not paid the $54,000 in attorney fees, according to a representative for Saenz's legal team. Attorney Patrick Evans, who filed to garnish Ortiz's wages, said Ortiz never responded to attempts to resolve the debt. The case includes a wage-garnishment filing and a subpoena for Ortiz's financial records, per San José Spotlight's reporting. Evans said the case should serve as a caution to elected leaders about acting against constituents.

Political Timing Adds Pressure

The financial reckoning lands as Ortiz runs for a second term representing East San Jose. He placed first with 44.9% of the vote in the June 2 primary, sending him into a November general election runoff against former state lawmaker Nora Campos, as Hoodline previously reported. Campos is Ortiz's opponent in the November runoff.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau's QuickFacts for San Jose city, median household income was $146,427 in 2020-2024 dollars and per capita income was $65,945 during the same period.

The fee dispute is not the only legal matter shadowing Ortiz's tenure. A Santa Clara County Superior Court judge in June allowed a separate California Public Records Act lawsuit to proceed seeking private group text messages, labeled “Tammany Hall,” that allegedly included Ortiz and other San Jose officials. Whether Ortiz settles the $54,000 judgment before his October 5 debtor hearing, and whether wage garnishment against his council salary ultimately proceeds, remains to be seen as East San Jose voters weigh in on his reelection bid.

The forum at the Mountain View Community Center was hosted by the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce and moderated by chamber CEO and president Peter Katz, who posed roughly a dozen questions to the field, according to San José Spotlight. All three seats up for grabs belong to outgoing Councilmembers Alison Hicks, Ellen Kamei, and Lucas Ramirez, who are stepping down in January after two consecutive four-year terms, guaranteeing entirely new representation on a council that otherwise won't face another election until 2028. Voters will elect the three candidates with the most votes on November 3.

SB 79 Divides the Field

Much of the debate centered on Senate Bill 79, the state law that took effect in July mandating by-right residential density and height increases within a half-mile of major transit stops, according to the California Department of Housing and Community Development. In Mountain View, that means the law applies to Caltrain and VTA light rail stations as well as the downtown transit center. Cities have the option to pass local alternative plans or temporary exclusion ordinances instead of following the state framework directly.

James Kuszmaul, chair of the city's Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee and a volunteer lead for Mountain View YIMBY, backed SB 79 outright, saying more people should have access to housing near public transit. He opposed pursuing a local alternative plan, arguing it might not produce better outcomes than the state law and could divert staff time and resources from other city projects. Robert Cox, who is active with Livable Mountain View, took the opposite view, expressing concern that SB 79 could hurt downtown and supporting a local alternative plan to preserve it. Paul Donahue similarly said the state law is not well-suited to conditions in Mountain View and backed the alternative-plan option, as did Silja Paymer and Idarose Sylvester. Erik Poicon described SB 79 as a one-size-fits-all approach during the discussion.

Downtown Office Growth Splits Candidates

Candidates also diverged over whether Mountain View should add more housing and office space downtown, an area with a concentration of historic properties on the first three blocks of Castro Street. Erik Poicon and Alexander Amorso both supported more downtown office development, while Samuel Ali did as well. Robert Cox and Paul Donahue opposed adding more downtown office space at this time, and Silja Paymer said she opposes it for now, too. Idarose Sylvester and James Kuszmaul each said their support would depend on the specific project, with Kuszmaul favoring only a limited amount of downtown office growth. Nearly all candidates agreed the city's permitting process should be more transparent and streamlined, and all eight said opening a small business in Mountain View should be easier than it currently is.

North Bayshore's Long Runway

The candidates' views on North Bayshore, the sprawling Google-led development slated for major housing and office growth over the next 30 years, were similarly mixed. Erik Poicon, Robert Cox, and Idarose Sylvester supported large-scale office development there, with Sylvester tying her support to building complete communities. James Kuszmaul said he'd support a limited amount, while Paul Donahue said he might support it, and Silja Paymer said her support would hinge on what else the developer offers the city. Samuel Ali backed large-scale North Bayshore office development, while Alexander Amorso opposed it. The City of Mountain View unanimously approved Google's North Bayshore Master Plan in 2023, setting up a framework for as many as 7,000 residential units and 3.14 million square feet of office space across 153 acres, with 15% of the housing reserved as affordable. San José Spotlight notes that Google's broader Mountain View plans remain unclear, and that the company has pulled back from other large projects in the city.

Hotel Tax and Vacancy Fixes

Eight of the candidates voiced support for the ballot measure that would let the City Council raise the local hotel tax from 10% up to 15%, a rate that has not budged since 1991 and now trails neighbors like Palo Alto and Menlo Park at 15.5% and Sunnyvale at 12.5%, according to the Palo Alto Daily Post. The city projects the increase could generate up to $5.2 million annually for general services. The measure emerged after officials abandoned a much larger infrastructure bond of between $480 million and $650 million once polling showed likely voter support sliding from 61% in January to 52% by May, short of the two-thirds threshold bonds require, as detailed in Hoodline's earlier report on the mayor's revenue plans. A general hotel tax needs only a simple majority to pass.

Several candidates floated their own fixes for downtown vacancies and business retention. Erik Poicon suggested a storefront vacancy tax for long-empty properties, an idea Silja Paymer also backed, along with strengthening pre-lease assistance for applicants and tracking business closure and retention rates more closely. Silja Paymer said more mixed-use zoning could help small businesses, while Idarose Sylvester called for preserving businesses in downtown's historic core and making it easier and faster for businesses to succeed. Samuel Ali emphasized that the city should partner with businesses and promote them through social media, and Alexander Amorso pointed to employee turnover as a major issue while calling for more local-business support, including workforce housing.

The forum comes as Mountain View grapples with a housing market where the median home sale price reaches $1.85 million, prompting the city's Low and Middle Income Homeownership Strategy detailed in Hoodline's report on a home-buying lifeline for $250K earners. The city's unhoused population also surged 56% between 2023 and 2025, according to Santa Clara County's Point-in-Time Count. A full recording of the candidate forum is available on the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce's website.

The audit, titled "Affordable Multifamily Housing Loan Portfolio: Clearer Goals and Stronger Oversight Would Improve Monitoring", was formally issued by the City of San Jose on June 5. City Auditor Joseph Rios presented the findings to the council on August 18, telling members his office examined San Jose's affordable housing developments after residents identified housing affordability as a key concern, according to San José Spotlight. The council voted that same day to accept the auditor's report and its recommendations.

Rios said resource constraints and the absence of standard processes were the primary reasons behind incomplete reviews, and he identified strategic planning and risk-rating as top priorities for the department going forward. The Housing Department completed only two-thirds of its annual compliance reviews in 2024 and 2025, per the outlet's reporting, and had built up a three-month backlog of property inspections.

One Inspector, Tens of Thousands of Homes

The staffing numbers behind those gaps are stark. During the audit period, the department had just one inspector covering tens of thousands of homes, even though the agency overall runs on an annual budget of about $119 million and 112 full-time employees administering federal, state, and local housing funds, according to a description of the department's capacity published by BeBee. The audit also flagged vacancies and high employee turnover as ongoing problems within the department.

Those staffing shortfalls translated into repeated compliance failures at the property level. The audit found that a quarter of properties inspected in 2024 and 2025 required reinspection three or more times, and one property was reexamined eight times before it finally received a violation notice. Auditors also found that some affordable housing buildings had repeated code violations that went unresolved for extended periods.

Income Limits and an Unpaid $7.6 Million Loan

Beyond the inspection backlog, auditors sampled nearly 880 apartments across 10 properties and found 110 sampled households exceeded their apartment's income limits. Overall, 13% of households in the sample slightly exceeded local income restrictions and 5% surpassed federal income thresholds, figures Rios presented to the council. Rios also noted that federal and state governments may have overlapping oversight responsibilities depending on how a given property was financed.

The financial stakes extend beyond compliance paperwork. One property owner owed San Jose $7.6 million in 2025, while another paid the city only about $1,700 that same year, illustrating a wide gap in how developers have kept up with repaying their affordable housing loans. Some developers have not repaid their loans at all, the audit found, and reduced income at struggling properties has further diminished their ability to pay the city back. Separately, one affordable housing property could have collected $114,000 more per year, and other properties lost potential rental income because tenants were charged below the amounts allowed under their agreements.

City Says Fixes Are Already Underway

Housing Director Erik Soliván accepted the auditor's findings at the meeting last Tuesday and told the council his department is developing an automated rent-roll portal, which would show where affordable or subsidized housing is available in San Jose, along with a risk-rating model to help staff prioritize which properties need review first. Soliván said property managers, not the city, are ultimately responsible for acting when a household's income rises above or falls below program limits — the Housing Department itself has no ability to take action on those households directly, nor can it issue fines or citations. The department also lacks a clear process for escalating problems to the city's code enforcement team, according to the audit.

Councilmember Pamela Campos asked housing staff to return to the council once they have developed a formal policy for handling tenants who fall above or below income limits. Sarah Fields, a department representative, said the Housing Department is already implementing the audit's recommendations, which also include updating the department's outdated software — auditors said the current systems hinder loan and property tracking — and developing a strategic affordable housing oversight plan that defines staff roles and goals.

A Problem San Jose Has Flagged Before

This is not the first time San Jose's own watchdogs have raised these concerns. The city last formally audited its affordable housing portfolio in 2014, and that audit turned up similar findings to this year's report. A separate 2017 city audit found that enforcement of San Jose's Apartment Rent Ordinance was severely hindered by insufficient staffing and complex rules such as rent banking, according to San Jose Inside. More recently, an April 2024 report from the California State Auditor found that San Jose failed to consistently establish performance measures or track revenues and expenditures for its housing and homelessness programs.

Not everyone views the audit's headline concerns the same way. Sandy Perry said building-code oversight problems are more impactful for apartment residents than households exceeding income limits, a distinction that speaks to what tenant advocates see as the more urgent priority: livable conditions over technical income compliance.

Growth Mandates Add Pressure

The oversight gaps come as San Jose faces state-mandated growth requirements that will keep expanding its housing stock — and its administrative workload — for years to come. The city's 2023–2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation, certified by state housing officials in January 2024, requires San Jose to plan for 62,200 new residential units across various income tiers over eight years. Meanwhile, the city's approach to funding affordable housing has shifted: in June 2025 the council adopted a $5.5 billion operating budget that reallocated Measure E real estate transfer tax revenue away from long-term affordable housing construction toward short-term homeless shelter operations, according to reporting cited by San José Spotlight. In February, the city separately allocated up to $11.2 million to master-lease 197 vacant apartments in a struggling downtown luxury tower under a new voucher program aimed at middle-income workers and municipal employees.

As San Jose adds units through both large developments and smaller infill projects — the city permitted 2,922 accessory dwelling units between 2017 and 2024, with annual permits climbing from 92 to 558 over that span, according to SV@Home — the audit's authors made clear that the department's capacity to track what it already owns and manages has not kept pace. Whether the promised rent-roll portal and risk-rating model close that gap will likely be the subject of the follow-up the council has already requested.

Bello previously ran for one of three vacant council seats in 2024 but dropped out of that race, citing family and health reasons according to a statement on Facebook, as reported by Palo Alto Online. Even after stepping back from active campaigning, she still placed fifth in that nine-candidate 2024 race, according to Ballotpedia. This time, she says she intends to win.

A Local Résumé Built On Housing And Youth Advocacy

Bello has spent more than a decade leading local nonprofits and participating in city affairs, per the same Palo Alto Online report. She led Youth United for Community Action, an East Palo Alto-based nonprofit that encourages youth in low-income communities to advocate for policy change, serving as its executive director for six years. According to the Green Foothills organization, she was appointed to that role in 2019 at age 26, after completing grass-roots advocacy training through the group's Leadership Program in 2017.

She also served five years on the East Palo Alto Planning Commission and was elected to the East Palo Alto Sanitary District board, giving her direct experience with the municipal infrastructure issues that have historically constrained local housing development. The city officially absorbed that sanitary district as a subsidiary agency on October 1, 2024, following unanimous approval from the San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission in November 2023, according to the City of East Palo Alto.

Housing Fight Over Incentive Program Shaped Her Campaign

Bello's decision to run again is tied directly to a fight over a temporary housing development incentive program proposed in June 2026, which she and other residents protested because it would have reduced local affordable housing protections. That program was ultimately rejected after residents expressed fear over displacement, the Palo Alto Online report notes. Bello has said East Palo Alto residents had to establish guardrails against the housing market, framing her candidacy around renters' rights, affordable housing, accessible housing and city safety.

“Her decisions will prioritize ordinary and working-class people in East Palo Alto,” the outlet reported, and Bello has said residents will be at the forefront of her decisions if elected. Bello holds a master's degree in urban affairs and public policy; per the Pahali Community Land Trust, she earned her bachelor's degree from UC Santa Barbara as a first-generation college student before completing that graduate degree at the University of San Francisco.

Her Current Role Leading The Community Land Trust

Bello now works in a dual executive capacity as executive director of the Pahali Community Land Trust and program director of Community Owned Real Estate at EPACANDO, according to Silicon Valley Next. The land trust is dedicated to preserving affordable housing portfolios in East Palo Alto. That mission got a major financial boost in December 2024, when the San Francisco Foundation issued a $1 million loan to EPACANDO's Placekeeper Fund to acquire local single-family homes, convert them into the land trust and build accessory dwelling units — a purchase that included buying YUCA's own headquarters building, according to the San Francisco Foundation.

A Seven-Candidate Field For Two Open Seats

Bello is one of seven candidates competing for two seats on the council this fall. Long-serving incumbent Ruben Abrica is seeking reelection, while incumbent Martha Barragan announced in July that she will not seek another term due to health reasons, guaranteeing at least one open seat, according to the Palo Alto Daily Post. Besides Bello and Abrica, the field includes businesswoman Holifa Windom, resident Gail Dixon Wilkerson and local plumbing business owner Sam Jimenez.

The stakes of the race are underscored by the city's demographics. U.S. Census Bureau data spanning 2020 to 2024 put East Palo Alto's median household income at $113,493, while median single-family home values reached $1,102,600 and median gross rent stood at $2,244 per month. That same data shows 50.9% of the city's occupied housing units are renter-occupied, compared to 49.1% owner-occupied, helping explain why tenant protections remain such a central issue in local elections.

Part Of A Larger Pattern Of City Hall Friction

Bello's entry into the race adds another dimension to a council already navigating friction over public safety and neighborhood policy. Hoodline has previously reported on council debates over surveillance tools, and separately covered a parking permit dispute that drew residents into city hall. With the November election approaching, voters will decide how the council balances aggressive affordable housing mandates against the pace of new development in a city where the majority of households rent.

The lawsuit, filed in February by the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and StandWithUs, names California's Board of Education, Department of Education and state Superintendent Tony Thurmond as defendants, according to MyNewsLA.com. It marks the first time an entire state public education system and state department of education have been sued over alleged systemic antisemitism in K-12 schools nationwide, as reported by The Washington Times. The plaintiffs are represented by national firm Davis Polk & Wardwell and Los Angeles-based Stubbs Alderton & Markiles alongside in-house counsel from the two advocacy groups, per J. The Jewish News of Northern California.

The state's dismissal motion, filed August 21, argues that California is not a proper party defendant and that Assembly Bill 715 already provides the relief the plaintiffs are seeking, per the court papers cited by MyNewsLA.com. The proposed injunctive relief, the Attorney General's Office contends, would usurp the authority of the state's Office of Civil Rights, which already houses an Antisemitism Prevention Coordinator.

What the 48-Page Complaint Alleges

The complaint, running 48 pages, describes what it calls unchecked antisemitism in school districts across the state, per the complaint. It identifies affected districts including Los Angeles, Santa Clara, San Francisco, Campbell Union, Berkeley, Fremont, Etiwanda and Oakland, according to the filing detailed by MyNewsLA.com.

Among the specific incidents cited: a Kester Elementary School teacher allegedly barred a student from performing in a talent show unless she stopped using a poster depicting the Israeli flag, and a third-grade Jewish student at the same school was allegedly called a racist by her teacher, per the lawsuit. At Louis Armstrong Middle School, a seventh-grade Jewish student who wore a Star of David necklace and Israel-related shirts was allegedly disciplined, the suit claims. A Daniel Pearl Magnet High School honors student was allegedly required to sit through a teacher's antisemitic celebration of the October 7, 2023 massacre of Israelis, according to the complaint.

The lawsuit also alleges that many California teachers led students in off-campus walkouts supporting Hamas and demonizing Israel, and that teachers used class time to teach antisemitic and anti-Israel propaganda. It specifically points to a ninth-grade art teacher at Berkeley High School who allegedly displayed artwork depicting a fist punching through a Star of David and facilitated a student walkout involving antisemitic chants, according to J. The Jewish News of Northern California. The complaint further alleges the Oakland Education Association created an unapproved curriculum recycling antisemitic propaganda and longstanding antisemitic tropes, including a children's book for transitional kindergarten through third-grade students stating “I is for Intifada.”

What the Plaintiffs Want the Court to Order

The plaintiffs are asking the court to order the elimination of antisemitic curriculum and instruction, require antisemitism training for teachers and administrators, and mandate monitoring of schools where antisemitism is a problem. They also want the court to prohibit segregation of Jewish students and to limit school funding for districts that allegedly fail to enforce nondiscrimination policies. The suit cites the state constitution's equal protection and free exercise clauses, alleging that California and the Board of Education violated those provisions, and claims state agencies failed to act against antisemitic discrimination in public schools.

Plaintiffs said the lawsuit was necessitated by systemic failure and seeks protections for California's Jewish students. The California Legislature itself had already found that antisemitic discrimination, harassment and bullying threatened student safety and learning, a finding tied directly to the passage of Assembly Bill 715.

The Law at the Center of the State's Defense

Assembly Bill 715, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in October 2025 following months of legislative debate, established a statewide Antisemitism Prevention Coordinator within the state's newly created Office of Civil Rights, effective January 1, according to CalMatters. The law was introduced in response to a reported surge in antisemitic discrimination, harassment and bullying in California schools. California Department of Justice data cited by CalMatters shows reported anti-Jewish bias incidents statewide doubled between 2021 and 2024, accounting for more than 15% of all reported hate crime events in California despite Jewish residents comprising roughly 3% of the state's population.

The California Department of Education moved to implement the law over the summer, publishing an official Management Bulletin on July 17 under Education Code Section 280(a) providing administrative guidance to local educational agencies on AB 715's anti-discrimination requirements and reporting responsibilities. Separately, at least ten California school districts were already under federal Title VI civil rights investigations by the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights over alleged anti-Jewish discrimination at the time the state lawsuit was filed, per The Washington Times.

AB 715 has already survived one legal test. In July, U.S. District Judge Noel Wise dismissed with prejudice a separate federal First Amendment lawsuit brought by teachers, students and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee seeking to block enforcement of the law, according to Courthouse News Service. That challenge is separate from the Brandeis Center and StandWithUs suit but bears on the same statute the Attorney General's Office now cites as grounds for dismissal. Hoodline previously covered the federal challenge when it was first filed.

What Happens Next

Judge Iwasaki has scheduled a formal hearing for December 3 to hear oral arguments on the Attorney General's demurrer and motion to dismiss. The hearing will determine whether the case moves forward or whether the court agrees that AB 715's administrative framework already renders the plaintiffs' requested injunctive relief unnecessary. Also unresolved is whether classroom-level incidents in individual districts can properly be pursued against state agencies rather than the districts themselves, a question the state's filings raise directly.

The open seats exist because District 2 Councilmember Raj Chahal and District 3 Councilmember Karen Hardy are both term-limited and must leave office in December 2026, according to San José Spotlight. Under the Santa Clara City Charter, council members and the mayor can serve a maximum of two consecutive four-year terms before they must step aside, a rule confirmed by the City of Santa Clara. Hardy is not leaving politics altogether — she plans to run for Santa Clara mayor, per the same report, in a race that will also determine who succeeds longtime Mayor Lisa Gillmor, who is term-limited out of the city's top job at the end of the year.

Who's Running in District 2

Inciarte, 37, is a longtime Santa Clara resident and first-generation college graduate who currently works as director of intergovernmental strategy for Congressman Ro Khanna. She serves on the city's Economic Development Committee, its Chief's Advisory Committee, the Historical and Landmarks Commission, and the West Valley-Mission College Foundation board, the outlet's report notes. Inciarte said her government experience prepared her to bring a transparent and accountable approach to City Hall, and that she wants residents included regardless of language barriers.

Her platform centers on housing affordability, public safety, fiscal responsibility, infrastructure and economic growth. Inciarte wants the city to make it easier for small businesses to operate and to improve maintenance of sidewalks, streets and other infrastructure. She has also said Santa Clara's budget deficit will require difficult council decisions while still protecting parks, services and community programs.

Williams, 48, has lived in Santa Clara for more than 18 years and has spent roughly a decade involved with local schools and parent organizations. She helped establish a PTA at Central Park Elementary and serves on the California State PTA Board of Managers and the Santa Clara Schools Foundation. Williams has said education is connected to housing, parks, transportation, infrastructure and neighborhood safety.

The 49ers Question Resurfaces

Williams has also weighed in on the city's fraught relationship with the San Francisco 49ers, calling Levi's Stadium a city asset and saying both sides share responsibility for making sure it succeeds and benefits Santa Clara residents. That relationship has been strained for years: a Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury report titled “Outplayed,” published in June 2024, concluded that city officials were repeatedly overmatched in contract negotiations with Forty Niners Management Company, prompting council debate later that year, as reported by The Silicon Valley Voice.

The tension has also shown up in campaign spending. During the 2022 municipal election, independent expenditure committees funded by 49ers CEO Jed York spent more than $1 million supporting candidates including then-District 3 incumbent Karen Hardy, according to Local News Matters, which noted the ownership group had spent roughly $3 million on city elections two years earlier. In May 2024, the City Council and Stadium Authority voted 5-2 to settle the final lawsuit tied to Levi's Stadium operations with the 49ers, a deal that generated $20 million for the city over two years and cut Stadium Authority debt from $22.3 million to $14.8 million, per San José Spotlight.

District 3's Two Contenders

Crutchlow, 66, has lived in Santa Clara since 1984 and has worked in the technology industry for more than two decades, most recently at Lumen Technologies as a cybersecurity product manager, with about 25 years in that field overall. He chairs the Santa Clara Planning Commission, where he has served for roughly three years, and previously sat on the city's Charter Review Committee. Crutchlow has said the council has substantial tension among its members and wants a more collaborative approach; his campaign focuses on improving city finances, maintaining infrastructure and increasing public participation.

Crutchlow pointed to the George F. Haines International Swim Center as an example of Santa Clara's infrastructure challenges, and said the city should plan and save for maintenance and replacement rather than deferring it. The swim center was forced to shut down in January 2024 due to extensive structural and safety hazards, and in December 2025, the City Council approved an urgency contract estimated at $23.18 million for its Phase 1 rehabilitation, according to The Silicon Valley Voice. That repair sits alongside the broader $400 million Measure I infrastructure bond that Santa Clara voters approved in November 2024 to address more than $600 million in unfunded needs, which allocated $115.3 million toward parks and aquatic facilities, along with money for fire stations, storm drains, and streets, per San José Spotlight.

Madej, 45, is a Santa Clara native born and raised in District 3, where his family has lived since 1969. He is the CEO of Sentinel Holdings Ltd. and also operates Gladiator Solutions and United Security Specialists, and has previously worked for the city of Santa Clara and the Santa Clara Unified School District. Madej has served as Briarwood Little League president since 2023 after 12 years on its board, sits on the Santa Clara Youth Soccer League board, and has coached youth, high school and collegiate baseball and soccer.

Fiscal Pressure Meets Neighborhood Priorities

Madej described Santa Clara as being at a tipping point and said he wants to be a voice for ordinary residents, adding that one of his strengths is building relationships between opposing sides. His campaign prioritizes investing in District 3 neighborhoods, maintaining the city's long-term fiscal stability, fully funding police, fire and emergency services, expanding youth programs and recreational spaces, and supporting small businesses. Madej has said Santa Clara should protect neighborhood character, upgrade infrastructure and remain affordable for working families.

Fiscal stability is likely to remain a flashpoint through the campaign. When Santa Clara property tax bills arrived in November 2025, property owners were assessed $28.70 per $100,000 of assessed value for Measure I — 51% higher than the $19 figure cited in the 2024 ballot summary, according to The Silicon Valley Voice. City officials have clarified that the $19 figure was a projected 30-year average rather than an annual rate cap, the outlet reported.

All four candidates — Inciarte, Williams, Crutchlow and Madej — say they are prioritizing affordable housing, quality of life, public safety and aging infrastructure, according to San José Spotlight. Their races unfold as the city separately weighs a revised El Camino Real Specific Plan that could add up to 4,390 new housing units along a transit corridor, an issue Hoodline previously reported is now moving toward a council vote.

The council voted unanimously to grant the continuance, but declined to set a firm new hearing date, according to The Mercury News. Razi Mohiuddin, the association's founder, asked the town yesterday to continue the discussion into September. Town Attorney Gabrielle Whelan advised that locking in a date might not be feasible while staff works through the records requests, and Councilmember Rob Moore floated September 15 as a possible target, though no date was finalized.

At the center of the delay is a startling shift in how many people the Santa Clara County Fire Department says the mosque's building can safely hold. The department reassessed the site's occupancy limit from 1,214 down to 566 people last month, a change the mosque disclosed to the council. Mohiuddin told the council the facility's occupancy limit was 682 back in 1990, and said an occupancy calculator applying assembly-with-standing-space rules — which allow 5 square feet per person — would put capacity at 1,217 people across the mosque's three prayer halls, which together total 6,083 square feet.

Neighbors Demand Answers on the Numbers

James Ratcliff, speaking for the Farley Road Neighborhood Coalition, told the council the group wants building plans with room-by-room occupancy loads and calculations, along with an explanation for why earlier occupancy figures were apparently wrong. The coalition also requested communication records and site-visit documentation from 2025 and 2026. Moore said the appellants have asked for the fire department's occupancy study, building plans, and traffic studies, and town staff will need to obtain and review that material before releasing new staff reports to the public.

The coalition organized its opposition well before this week's hearing. Neighbors gathered more than 70 signatures on a petition in March raising safety concerns about vehicle congestion and blocked driveways on narrow residential streets that lack sidewalks, according to KTVU. Residents have said their opposition centers on traffic and quality-of-life impacts rather than the mosque's religious identity, and nearby residents have complained that mosque services disrupt their lives with vehicle noise and headlights at night.

What the Mosque Is Asking For

The West Valley Muslim Association, which operates Los Gatos's only mosque, applied in 2024 to update its conditional use permit so it could extend operating hours for morning, nightly, and Ramadan prayers. The permit modification sought to push daily closing times from 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on standard days, with further extensions to 11:30 p.m. or midnight during Ramadan tied to seasonal sunset times, and it also asked for defined arrival windows up to 90 minutes before sunrise for Fajr prayers, the pre-dawn observance.

The Los Gatos Planning Commission approved the association's permit in April, but attached 33 conditions, including a requirement that the mosque renovate its parking lot within a year and a cap on occupancy tied to the number of available parking spaces. At its April 22 meeting, the commission also voted to restrict vehicle counts at the site to 180 during early morning and late-night hours, exempting only Ramadan nights — a condition mosque leadership opposed as an unprecedented burden not imposed on any other place of worship in town, per the Los Gatan. Mosque leaders challenged the commission's decision in June, arguing that some of the conditions substantially burden their ability to exercise their religion.

Civil Rights Groups and Town's Own Lawyer Raised Red Flags

The dispute has drawn outside civil rights scrutiny. The San Francisco Bay Area office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations submitted a letter in June urging the town council to overturn 19 of the 33 conditions, calling them unlawful under federal civil rights law and arguing that conditions unique to the mosque violate equal-treatment standards for houses of worship. Earlier, in April, the San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP warned town officials that restricting religious worship during Ramadan over traffic concerns fails to meet federal standards for burdening constitutional freedoms.

Even the town's own attorney flagged problems. Whelan told the Planning Commission in May that several draft conditions proposed for the mosque likely violated federal law by imposing discriminatory burdens, prompting staff and commissioners to attempt revisions before the panel's final vote. Under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, local governments cannot apply land-use regulations that substantially burden religious exercise unless the government proves the restriction is the least restrictive means of serving a compelling interest, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. The law also requires that religious assemblies be treated equally to secular facilities in the same zone.

Support for the mosque has extended beyond its own congregation. Local interfaith leaders, including Jewish community members from Silicon Valley, attended 2026 planning hearings to testify in favor of granting the permit modification, arguing Muslim residents should be able to fulfill daily prayer obligations without municipal hindrance. The Planning Commission held five extensive public hearings over several months on the conditional use permit before acting — a process without the statutory approval deadlines that apply to certain housing developments.

The Farley Road building has functioned as a place of worship since at least 1963, when it served as a Jehovah's Witness kingdom hall, before the West Valley Muslim Association acquired it in 2018. With no hearing date confirmed, the fight over the mosque's occupancy numbers and permit conditions now shifts to how quickly Los Gatos staff can process the coalition's records requests — and whether the town can craft conditions that satisfy both neighbors and federal law.

According to the Palo Alto Daily Post, Dhillon said she is particularly concerned about foreign funding supporting professors' work and laboratories that may handle sensitive national security information. Dhillon added that Stanford is not being passed over because of its virtue, but because her office is still staffing up, per the same report. Federal data underscore why Stanford has drawn attention: Department of Education disclosures covering 1986 through December 2025 show the university received over $418 million from sources in designated countries of concern, ranking fourth among U.S. universities behind Harvard, MIT, and NYU, according to the U.S. Department of Education.

A Long History of Foreign Gifts Under the Microscope

Stanford's overall foreign funding footprint is substantial. Federal Section 117 transparency portal data released in February 2026 shows the university has reported $2.2 billion across 5,314 foreign gift and contract transactions since 1986, with donors from China accounting for the largest share at $413.2 million, as reported by The Stanford Daily. That places Stanford sixth overall among U.S. higher education institutions for total foreign gift disclosures since 1986, the student paper reported. In 2025 alone, Stanford reported receiving more than $775 million in foreign gifts and contracts, making it the third-highest university recipient nationwide that year behind Carnegie Mellon University and MIT.

Stanford has said it applies enhanced scrutiny to foreign sources, particularly those from countries of concern, and conducts rigorous due diligence on all philanthropic gifts and sponsored research, per the Palo Alto Daily Post. The university also maintains it has the right to decline gifts when their funding sources raise ethical or legal concerns, according to the same report. The scrutiny is not new: in October 2023, Stanford agreed to pay $1.9 million to resolve Justice Department allegations under the False Claims Act that 12 faculty members failed to disclose foreign research support on 16 federal research grant proposals submitted to five federal agencies, including military branches and NASA, according to the Department of Justice.

Executive Order Fuels Broader Federal Push

The current push traces back to Executive Order 14282, which President Trump signed in April 2025, establishing robust enforcement of Higher Education Act Section 117 as administration policy and authorizing federal agencies to pursue civil actions, criminal penalties, and loss of federal student aid for noncompliant universities, according to The White House. The order cited previous federal reviews that had uncovered billions of dollars in previously unreported foreign gifts. Section 117 itself, part of the Higher Education Act of 1965, requires domestic institutions receiving federal financial assistance to publicly report foreign gifts or contracts of $250,000 or more within a calendar year, a requirement that applies semiannually to accredited institutions offering bachelor's degrees or higher, per CASRAI.

In February 2026, the U.S. Department of Education entered an interagency agreement under the Economy Act with the U.S. Department of State to co-administer Section 117 reporting and share campus funding data for national security review purposes, according to Ropes & Gray LLP. The partnership leverages State Department resources for information collection and compliance enforcement, the law firm noted. The Trump administration has targeted elite universities including Harvard and Columbia over allegations of antisemitism and discriminatory admissions practices, per the Palo Alto Daily Post, making Stanford the latest institution to draw formal federal attention.

Admissions Probe and Donor Disputes Add to the Pressure

The foreign funding inquiry lands alongside a separate Justice Department investigation into Stanford's admissions practices. The department opened an inquiry in March 2026 into whether race was a factor in admissions at the Stanford School of Medicine, and threatened to withhold federal funding if the university failed to provide seven years of admissions records, with compliance required by April 24, according to The Stanford Daily. Hoodline previously reported on a related probe into UCLA's medical school under Dhillon's Civil Rights Division, which also cited ongoing inquiries at Stanford and UC San Diego.

Campus tensions over foreign donors have also flared closer to home. In June 2026, Stanford's Hoover Institution publicly disputed a student newspaper report alleging a $3 million 2025 donation to the institution originated from a high-ranking Chinese political figure linked to state influence operations, according to Newsweek. Hoover Institution leadership requested a retraction and characterized the report as a case of mistaken identity, per the same report.

Court Ruling Signals Limits on Federal Enforcement

Not every federal effort targeting elite universities has held up in court. A federal judge in Boston ruled that the government's Title VI antisemitism lawsuit against Harvard, which had claimed the university failed to address campus antisemitism, was thrown out in August 2026, per the Palo Alto Daily Post. Federal prosecutors failed to prove ongoing civil rights violations following formal administrative notification, according to Poets&Quants, with the ruling emphasizing that Title VI enforcement is designed to encourage voluntary compliance rather than penalize past actions.

That ruling offers a preview of the legal terrain Stanford could face if the foreign funding inquiry escalates into formal litigation. For now, the Justice Department's plans remain in an early stage, with Dhillon framing the scrutiny as a matter of catching up on enforcement rather than singling out Stanford for wrongdoing. Whether the university's existing due-diligence practices satisfy federal investigators, or whether this becomes another courtroom test of Section 117 enforcement, remains to be seen.

Thomas made the remarks during an August 11 interview with Hoover fellow Peter Robinson, part of a forum honoring 96-year-old conservative economist Thomas Sowell, according to the Hoover Institution. Thomas credited Sowell with giving him intellectual independence early in his legal career. He also said that while he had visited Yale Law School — his own alma mater, which he has criticized for decades over affirmative action and what he describes as hostility to conservative viewpoints — he had never set foot on Stanford's law campus, as reported by the Palo Alto Daily Post.

Stanford did not let the claim sit unanswered. The university said it would be honored to host Justice Thomas at Stanford Law School, noting that its Constitutional Law Center, directed by former Tenth Circuit judge Michael McConnell, regularly hosts members of the judiciary on campus. The university added that Stanford students and faculty would welcome the opportunity to hear from Thomas and engage with his perspectives on the court, the Constitution and the law, per the same account. The Daily Beast characterized the university's response as a direct rebuttal to Thomas's claim of exclusion.

The 2023 Incident That Still Haunts Stanford Law

Thomas's grievance traces back to March 9, 2023, when Fifth Circuit Judge Kyle Duncan was invited by Stanford's Federalist Society chapter to deliver a talk titled “Guns, Covid, and Twitter.” A group of roughly 90 law students prevented Duncan, a federal appeals court judge, from completing his speech, according to the Palo Alto Daily Post. Stanford students affiliated with LGBTQ groups backlashed against Duncan's appearance, and two of those groups had demanded he instead address students remotely over Zoom.

Tirien Steinbach, then Stanford Law's associate dean for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, sided with the protesters during the confrontation, though she also acknowledged Duncan's free speech rights. Steinbach became a national flashpoint after asking Duncan whether his judicial decisions were, in her words, worth the squeeze. She was placed on leave in the aftermath and officially resigned from Stanford Law in July 2023, as The SF Standard reported at the time.

Apologies, a Boycott and New Speech Rules

Both Stanford Dean Jenny Martinez and then-university president Marc Tessier-Lavigne issued written apologies to Duncan following the disruption. Martinez went further, issuing a 10-page memorandum clarifying that university policy forbids a heckler's veto and mandating a half-day educational session on freedom of speech for all law students that spring, according to The Stanford Daily. The memo affirmed that non-disruptive protest remains protected but that shouting down invited speakers is not.

The fallout extended beyond campus. In April 2023, Fifth Circuit Judge James Ho and Eleventh Circuit Judge Elizabeth Branch announced they would boycott hiring Stanford Law graduates as federal clerks, a step they had previously taken against Yale Law School, the ABA Journal reported. Separately, the Free Beacon noted the incident drew sharp criticism from legal organizations and federal judges nationwide.

In the administrative shakeup that followed, Martinez was elevated to Stanford University provost in October 2023, and corporate legal scholar George Triantis took over as the school's 15th dean in June 2024. Triantis pledged upon his appointment to foster open debate and constructive exchange across diverse viewpoints, according to a Stanford Report announcement.

A Think Tank on Campus, and a Broader Argument

The venue for Thomas's remarks adds a layer of irony to his framing: the Hoover Institution, founded on Stanford's campus in 1919 by future president Herbert Hoover, is itself a conservative-leaning public policy think tank, though it operates with an independent board and separate funding from the university. Thomas used the platform to argue that digital tools like YouTube now let younger audiences discover conservative thinkers such as Sowell directly, without relying on university gatekeepers, according to a report from CrowdBlue. He suggested elite universities no longer hold a monopoly over public intellectual discourse.

Thomas's Stanford comments follow a pattern of tightly managed or scuttled campus appearances. He spoke at UT Austin under wraps this spring under tight security, and in February he canceled an in-person appearance at American University's Washington College of Law over security concerns, opting to speak remotely instead. Whether he will take Stanford up on its offer remains unclear.

Riis and Subbarayan entered the race before the filing period closed earlier this month, according to the Mountain View Voice. Riis is a father of two with one child currently enrolled in the district, and he led an unsuccessful effort last year to recall Conley, a campaign he announced at a June 2025 board meeting. That recall drive failed to gather enough signatures to reach the ballot, but Riis told the Voice that the experience shaped his decision to run this time around, saying he was concerned no one else would challenge the incumbents. “No one deserves a walk-on, especially the current board with all of the recent controversies we've faced,” he said.

Two Incumbents Point to Records on the Board

Conley, first elected to the board in 2018 and re-elected in 2022, previously worked as a teacher at the district's Stevenson Elementary School. She points to expanding free after-school care for low-income students, hiring counselors for each school, and adopting a new literacy curriculum as accomplishments from her tenure. Conley also ran unsuccessfully for Mountain View City Council in 2024, and she said she's running for the board again because her work there remains unfinished.

Lambert has served on the board on and off since 2012, stepping away after declining to seek re-election in 2016 before rejoining in 2022. He works as an intellectual property partner at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP and holds a doctorate in chemical physics, a background he says brings a scientist's rigor and a lawyer's thoughtfulness to the board. Lambert said he remains committed to preparing students to attend college.

Newcomers Pitch Fiscal Oversight and New Programs

Subbarayan, the other newcomer in the race, has two children who graduated from Los Altos High School after attending Stevenson Elementary and Crittenden Middle School within the district. He served as head of school implementations for Khan Academy from 2011 to 2012, helping to integrate the platform, founded in Mountain View in 2006, into both the Mountain View Whisman and Los Altos school districts. Subbarayan now sits on the district's artificial intelligence committee and mentors students at Los Altos High School, and he said public education has driven his career and personal life. He's running on three focuses: successful student education, wise financial decisions, and discourse within the district, adding that every voice should be heard.

Riis, for his part, plans to introduce a formal gifted and talented program in the district and says he wants to reduce spending he considers wasteful. That fiscal framing lands amid lingering scrutiny of district spending: public members previously raised alarms over contracts for coaching and meditation sessions for administrators, criticism that helped fuel both Riis's recall attempt and broader turnover on the board.

A Board Reshaped by Recent Turmoil

The five-member board already looks different from what it did two years ago. Three current trustees — Charles DiFazio, Lisa Henry, and Ana Reed — were newly elected in November 2024 and now hold terms running through late 2028, replacing incumbents amid the fallout from spending controversies under former Superintendent Ayindé Rudolph. Rudolph resigned in November 2024 after taking a short-term leave, receiving a $98,259 severance payout, following public outcry over administrative contracts that included a $121,150 deal for guided staff meditation with a self-described “master energy healer” and a $370,000 personal coaching contract for his former supervisor, as reported by the Palo Alto Daily Post.

An extraordinary audit by the state's Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team, released in August 2025, found no evidence of fraud or illegal fiscal activity tied to Rudolph's contracts, though the report flagged extensive taxpayer-funded travel, the Daily Post reported. The district hired former Los Altos School District chief Jeffrey Baier as permanent superintendent in March 2025 under a three-year, $385,000-a-year contract, after he had served as interim leader since that February.

Fiscal Pressure Continues Even as Voters Backed New Funding

Despite the turmoil, voters overwhelmingly renewed local school funding in November 2024, approving Measure AA with 74% support to continue a $0.15-per-square-foot parcel tax generating roughly $5.4 million annually for teacher retention and core academic programs. That tax took effect in July 2025. Even so, the district approved $7.4 million in budget cuts for the 2026-27 fiscal year this past January, including a salary freeze for about 60 non-represented administrative staff and a 15% reduction in district office positions, cuts the district says are meant to protect direct classroom instruction.

The district serves roughly 4,600 students across nine elementary schools and two middle schools, with Hispanic students making up 39.3% of enrollment, Asian students 22.5%, and White students 21.8%, according to district demographic data from late 2025. About 26.2% of students qualify for free or reduced-price meals. Unlike the neighboring Mountain View-Los Altos High School District, which shifted this year to geographic trustee areas under the California Voting Rights Act, Mountain View Whisman continues to elect all five of its trustees at-large, as Hoodline previously reported in coverage of the broader local school board landscape.

Voters will decide among Conley, Lambert, Riis, and Subbarayan when the board election takes place in November.

The lawsuit, filed last Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under case number 5:2026cv08249, was first reported by the Palo Alto Daily Post. According to the Post's report, the trip took place in fall 2025 as part of Paly's Social Justice Pathway, a three-year program focused on addressing social problems, and brought students to the Muslim Community Association mosque at 3003 Scott Blvd. in Santa Clara. Named plaintiffs include Paly parents Jafi Lipton and Josh Lehrer, Los Altos Hindu parent Pawan Deshpande, Sunnyvale Zoroastrian parent Dinsha Mistree, Jewish community member Linor Levav, and former student Sahsa Ava Lehrer, along with four anonymous plaintiffs. The advocacy group Community Members for Religious Neutrality in Public Schools also joined the suit.

What the Complaint Alleges Happened Inside the Mosque

Per the lawsuit, students were taught that Islam particularly promotes social justice and were exposed to Zahra Billoo, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, whom the district's lawyer, David Rosenberg-Wohl, filed the case describing as a controversial speaker known for hostile and discriminatory statements regarding Jews and sharply ideological political views. The complaint alleges Billoo was given unfettered access to students to advocate her personal religious and political views without balancing perspective or adequate supervision, according to the same account.

Billoo's history has drawn scrutiny before. She was removed from the national board of the Women's March in September 2019, just two days after her appointment, following controversy over past statements about Israel and Jewish organizations, as reported by The Forward. In December 2021, mainstream Bay Area and national Jewish organizations widely condemned Billoo after she delivered a speech characterizing mainstream Jewish federations, campus Hillels and Zionist synagogues as opponents of the Muslim community, according to The Times of Israel.

Claims of Coercion, Privacy Violations and Unequal Treatment

The lawsuit alleges the district failed to maintain religious neutrality, failed to ensure equal treatment among faiths, failed to protect student privacy, and failed to vet, supervise and monitor religiously divisive outside speakers. It further alleges the trip amounted to coercive, school-sponsored religious activity. California Education Code Section 46014 requires explicit written parental consent before students can be excused from regular instruction to participate in religious exercises away from school grounds, per the Pioneer Union Elementary School District's guidance on the statute. Separately, Education Code Section 220 bars any public educational institution receiving state funds from engaging in or permitting religious discrimination against students, according to the California Department of Education.

Attorney Rosenberg-Wohl has litigated similar territory before. He filed a federal civil rights lawsuit in October 2024 against University Preparatory Academy in San Jose on behalf of a Jewish family alleging unaddressed antisemitic harassment, as reported by J. The Jewish News of Northern California. The current case is not the first in California to challenge a public school's partnership tied to CAIR programming; in July 2018, parents and legal advocacy groups sued the San Diego Unified School District over an anti-Islamophobia curriculum developed with CAIR, arguing it violated the Establishment Clause by favoring one religion, according to CBS News.

A District Already Facing a Wave of Litigation

Palo Alto Unified School District representatives did not return a request for comment on Wednesday, per the Daily Post. The district was already defending at least 11 separate lawsuits as of March, covering allegations of unchecked student bullying, employee retaliation and special education disputes, according to the Palo Alto Daily Post's earlier reporting.

This is not the district's only recent federal civil rights fight tied to Palo Alto High School. In May, Hoodline reported on a Paly grading fight over AI after a sophomore's family alleged the school lowered his grade based on automated cheating-detection flags without due process. The mosque trip lawsuit adds to a growing pattern of parents turning to federal court over decisions made inside PAUSD classrooms, and it leaves open, for now, whether the trip included clear opt-out provisions, whether its curriculum was approved at the district level, and whether Billoo was vetted as a guest speaker under district policy.

IFPTE Local 21 and MEF-AFSCME Local 101 together represent about 3,500 San Jose city workers, and both unions are urging members to vote yes on strike authorization, according to ABC7 Bay Area. Union officials reported that nearly 1,000 votes had already been cast yesterday. If members approve the measure, union leadership would have the authority to call a strike lasting up to three days, according to a release from PR Newswire. Results of the vote are expected to be announced next Monday.

At the center of the dispute is a straightforward math problem. San Jose's Last, Best, and Final Offer, issued June 11, includes a 3% annual raise over three years, totaling 9%, per ABC7's reporting. The union coalition is instead demanding 4% in the first year, 4.5% in the second, and 5.5% in the third — a 14% total package they say is needed to match regional inflation, as detailed by KQED.

Workers Describe a Widening Gap Between Pay and Rent

Dylan Kuhlmann-Halui, a union steward for MEF-AFSCME Local 101 who works in San Jose's parks, recreation and neighborhood services department, said a 3% raise would leave him poorer in real terms. He told ABC7 that daycare costs for his daughter were rising 6% and that his rent jumped 8% in a single month. Kuhlmann-Halui said workers are simply seeking a contract that keeps pace with inflation and a city willing to support them.

Michael Jun, a senior development officer with San Jose's housing department and a member of the IFPTE Local 21 bargaining team, recommended that workers vote yes to authorize the strike. Jun said the two sides remain far apart in negotiations. Union leaders have also pushed for artificial intelligence guardrails to protect workers' jobs and have prioritized recruitment and retention as staffing shortages strain city departments, per the same ABC7 report.

Mayor Mahan Says the City Cannot Spend What It Doesn't Have

Mayor Matt Mahan has said San Jose cannot spend money it does not have and has urged the unions that have not accepted the city's offer to return to the negotiating table. Three other San Jose unions have already accepted the city's terms, according to ABC7. Mahan's administration maintains the city made room for raises within its final offer, even as it stops short of the union coalition's inflation-matching demand.

Bargaining unions have also pointed to the city's own spending choices as evidence it can afford more. They cite the San Jose City Council's August 2025 vote committing $325 million in public funds toward modernizing the city-owned SAP Center to help retain the San Jose Sharks through 2051, part of a $425 million total arena renovation effort, as reported by AP News.

Staffing Shortages Are Fueling Overtime Costs

The staffing pressures behind the union's recruitment and retention push are backed by budget numbers. Nearly 400 San Jose fire and police department employees earned more than $100,000 in overtime in 2025, including one firefighter who collected $437,337 in overtime pay, more than twice his base salary. Public safety overtime costs have exceeded budget allocations by tens of millions of dollars, the report found.

Ahead of this week's vote, IFPTE Local 21 and MEF-AFSCME Local 101 ran virtual and in-person “Strike School” sessions in July and early August to train hundreds of city workers on picket line protocols and their labor law protections, with organizers reporting max-capacity attendance. Under California's Meyers-Milias-Brown Act and state Supreme Court precedent, public employees hold a statutorily protected right to strike unless the employer can show a substantial and imminent threat to public health and safety, the California Public Employment Relations Board has affirmed.

A Walkout Would Be San Jose's First in Nearly 20 Years

If a strike is called, it would mark the first San Jose city-worker strike in nearly 20 years and would come almost 45 years after the city's landmark 1981 walkout, when AFSCME Local 101 workers struck for nine days over pay inequity for female employees, ultimately winning a $1.4 million wage adjustment. San Jose's most recent minor labor action came in 2007, when fewer than 100 building inspectors walked off the job for two weeks.

A potential strike could affect libraries, housing services, animal care, public works and some airport operations, according to ABC7. The current standoff closely mirrors 2023's brink-of-strike showdown, when the same two unions authorized a three-day walkout that was called off at the last minute after the city and unions reached a two-year contract running through June 30, 2026. Whether history repeats itself this time remains an open question as voting continues through Friday and the strike possibility stays unresolved.