One killed after colliding with stopped semi on I-15 in Springville
Lt. Cameron Roden confirmed with ABC4.com that the crash happened around 10:15 p.m. on southbound I-15 near mile marker 262. The semi-truck reportedly had engine problems and was stopped in the right-most lane with its lights and hazard flashers on.
While crews were responding to assist the semi-truck, a white Kia Soul reportedly collided with the back of the semi. Lt. Roden said the driver and lone occupant of the Kia Soul died on the scene. The victim has only been identified as a 39-year-old man.
An investigation into the crash is still ongoing and no further details were provided.
Investigation underway after 'incident' between suspect and Utah conservation officer
Moderate Republicans draw red line on Medicaid cuts in Trump agenda bill
One killed after colliding with stopped semi on I-15 in Springville
One last day of above-average warmth before valley rain, mountain snow
Jan. 6 defendants, allies vexed with Trump admin
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
26 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
California lawmakers struggle to find ways to hit back against Trump immigration raids
LOS ANGELES – It has been nearly a month since the Trump administration launched its no-holds-barred immigration enforcement campaign in Southern California, deploying federal forces on raids that have sparked massive protests, prompted ongoing litigation in federal court and triggered a flurry of bills from outraged state lawmakers trying to fight back. And yet - at least so far - nothing seems capable of deterring the White House or forcing a change in tactics. In both Sacramento and Washington, observers said elected officials are coming up with proposals that seem to lack teeth. Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the UCLA Center for Immigration Law and Policy and former senior counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union in Los Angeles, said stopping the Trump administration from sending masked and unidentified immigration agents to snatch people off the street is proving difficult. "They detain everybody and interrogate them all and then just figure out afterward who's unlawfully present, and that's blatantly illegal," he said. "We can write more laws, but there's already perfectly good laws that say this is unlawful, and they're doing it anyway." A bill announced Monday by state Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez, D-Alhambra, would expand police impersonation laws and require all law enforcement, unless undercover, to wear a name tag or badge number. "While ICE has publicly condemned impersonations, the agency's use of face coverings and lack of consistent, visible identification creates public confusion and makes it difficult for the public to distinguish between authorized law enforcement personnel and dangerous criminals," Renée Pérez's office said in a news release. Another bill, introduced by state Sens. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, and Jesse Arreguín, D-Berkeley, also seeks to ban law enforcement from wearing face coverings. U.S. Representative Laura Friedman, D-Glendale, announced similar legislation Tuesday at the federal level, but the Republican majorities in both congressional houses mean it stands little chance of becoming law. The state bills have a better chance of passage in the Democratic-controlled Legislature, but they still face opposition. The Peace Officers Research Assn. of California, the largest statewide law enforcement union in the country, said banning face coverings could inadvertently put local cops - who are already required to wear badges, nameplates or badge numbers on their uniforms - at risk of losing access to personal protective equipment like face shields and respirators. "Using local law enforcement as a punching bag to grandstand against the federal government should not be an acceptable practice from our state leaders. It is misdirected, misguided, and intolerable," Brian R. Marvel, president of PORAC, said in a statement. Marvel said he doubted California had the authority to regulate the attire of federal officers. Arulanantham disagreed, saying that the state law could stand as long as the mask ban was neutrally applied to all law enforcement, not just federal actors. Other potential measures in the state Legislature, Arulanantham said, could expand on SB 54, the sanctuary policy that limits collaboration between state law enforcement and federal authorities on immigration enforcement. But even those protections are now under assault in the courts. The Trump administration sued the city of L.A. on Monday, arguing its sanctuary policy hampered the federal government's ability to enforce immigration law. "Our City remains committed to standing up for our constitutional rights and the rights of our residents," a spokesperson for the L.A. city attorney said in a statement. "We will defend our ordinance and continue to defend policies that reflect our longstanding values as a welcoming community for all residents." Other bills advancing through the state Legislature include measures that would restrict school officials from allowing immigration enforcement inside the nonpublic areas of schools and prohibit healthcare workers from sharing a patient's immigration status without judicial warrants. Democrats aren't alone in trying to get the White House to back off. A group of state Republican lawmakers authored a letter to Trump, arguing that widespread immigration raids are crippling the economy by taking away workers from key industries. "Unfortunately, the recent ICE workplace raids on farms, at construction sites, and in restaurants and hotels, have led to unintended consequences that are harming the communities we represent and the businesses that employ our constituents," the letter said. The Department of Homeland Security has insisted its agents are busy arresting "criminal illegal aliens" and said it will continue operations despite efforts by "rioters and politicians trying to hinder law enforcement." "As bad faith politicians attempt to demean and vilify our brave law enforcement, we will only double down and ramp up our enforcement actions against the worst of the worst criminals," Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a June 26 news release. Local city and county governments, civil rights groups and even individuals could step in to sue the government and ICE on the grounds that they are infringing upon citizens' constitutional rights and harming the local economy - but no notable cases have been filed. The city of Los Angeles is posturing for a suit and has already approved legal action against ICE, according to a proposal signed by seven members of the City Council. But early struggles in the state's challenge to Trump's deployment of federal troops do not bode well for future litigation. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals swiftly overturned a lower court decision that would've limited Trump's authority, and litigation over whether the troops can be used for immigration enforcement remains ongoing. While the court battle plays out, state Democratic leaders, including Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, D-Hollister, say they are working to fast-track some bills through the legislative process. "The Speaker is deeply invested in protecting California's immigrant workers and families in the face of reckless ICE raids and Trump's abuses of power," Rivas' spokesperson Nick Miller said in a statement. Some observers said that, despite the struggles legislation may face in the near term, it may be up to Republicans to change focus from Trump's agenda to things that affect their electorates, said veteran Democratic political strategist Roy Behr. "The Republicans seem more focused on doing whatever Trump wants, but at least these votes force them to show where their loyalties really lie. And you know, maybe one day they will actually start to pay the price for these votes and ultimately feel the pressure to change their minds." Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
Federal judge blocks Trump from ending temporary Haitian immigration program
The Haitian program is one of several the Department of Homeland Security seeks to end as the Trump administration takes a harder line on immigration. A federal judge blocked the Trump administration from ending a temporary program that provides work permits and protection from deportation for more than 500,000 Haitian immigrants months earlier than it was set to expire. The Department of Homeland Security announced in February it was rescinding the program called 'temporary protected status' for Haitians. Trump's predecessor, Democratic President Joe Biden, had set to run through Feb. 3, 2026. But U.S. District Judge Brian Cogan in Brooklyn ruled July 1 that DHS Secretary Kristi Noem did not follow instructions and a timeline mandated by Congress to reconsider the program. "Plaintiffs are likely to (and, indeed, do) succeed on the merits," Cogan wrote. "Plaintiffs have also shown that they will suffer irreparable injury without postponement." Federal courts blocked Trump from ending most enrollment in temporary work programs for immigrants during his first term. But the Supreme Court in May let the administration end the temporary program for the Venezuelans, signaling that other terminations could be allowed. The Trump administration also halted another program protecting immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela in June. And Trump imposed a travel ban against people arriving from a dozen countries including Haiti in June. The State Department has a Level 4 'Do Not Travel' warning for Haiti, citing widespread kidnappings, violent crime, and near-total collapse of emergency services. The advocacy group Haitian Bridge Alliance condemned the administration's move to end the temporary work program after the 2021 assassination of President Jovenel Moise and a 7.2 magnitude earthquake a month later. The group said the country where more than 1 million people are displaced faces rampant gang violence, and a lack of food and fuel. 'This is not just cruel − it's state-sanctioned endangerment,' Guerline Jozef, executive director of Haitian Bridge Alliance, said in a statement about ending the program. 'Sending back hundreds of thousands of people to a country overrun by gangs, where hospitals are shuttered and food is scarce, is a direct assault on Black immigrant communities." Noem decided to end the temporay program Aug. 3 and then pushed the date back to Sept. 2. Cogan found that the government didn't argue Noem had the statutory authority to end the temporary program. Instead, the government argued Noem was exercising her authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Cogan, who was appointed by George W. Bush, ruled Noem's action was "unlawful" for lack of statutory authority. Cogan also said Haitians' interests in being able to live and work in the United States "far outweigh" potential harm to the U.S. government, which remains free to enforce immigration laws and terminate the program. The case was filed on March 14 by nine Haitians who said Noem did not do a required review of current conditions in Haiti before ending the temporary program early.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Paramount to pay $16 million to settle with Trump in CBS News ‘60 Minutes' lawsuit
After months of legal negotiations and wrangling, the question was less about whether Paramount would settle with Donald Trump, and more about how much the president's lawyers would agree to. As NBC News reported, that question now has an answer. Paramount has agreed to pay $16 million to settle a lawsuit brought by President Donald Trump that had alleged an interview that aired on CBS's '60 Minutes' last year with Kamala Harris, his Democratic opponent for the presidency, was deceptively edited. The agreement in principle, proposed by a mediator, includes plaintiffs' fees and costs and — except for fees and costs — will be allocated to Trump's future presidential library, Paramount Global said in a statement late Tuesday. The company did not apologize as part of the deal or admit any fault. Nevertheless, the plaintiff wasted little time in gloating: In a written statement from a presidential spokesperson, Team Trump boasted that the settlement 'holds the Fake News media accountable for their wrongdoing and deceit.' Except that's not what happened. By now, the basic elements of this story are probably familiar, but to briefly recap, shortly before the 2024 presidential election, it's customary for the major party nominees to sit down for '60 Minutes' interviews. Last fall, Harris agreed, while Trump initially accepted the invitation before backing out soon after. Harris' interview wasn't especially memorable — it was, however, nominated for an Emmy Award — though Trump has whined incessantly about it for several months, claiming that the program deceptively edited the segment. The Republican's claims have already been thoroughly discredited, but his hysterics have only gotten worse: The president recently accused '60 Minutes' of, among other things, 'unlawful and illegal behavior.' Trump added that CBS should lose its broadcast license and 'pay a big price,' while calling on the Federal Communications Commission to 'impose the maximum fines and punishment.' But it was Trump's civil suit against CBS that was of particular interest, in which he asked for $20 billion in damages (that's not a typo), based on his conspiratorial beliefs about the news magazine's election coverage. Given the bizarre nature of Trump's assertions, and the fact that there really wasn't anything meaningfully wrong with the broadcast, it was unclear why anyone would take the civil suit seriously, or why the case would need to be settled at all. Indeed, after Paramount Global entered settlement negotiations, critics expressed fears that the company was prepared to turn over millions of dollars, not because '60 Minutes' did anything untoward, but because Paramount wants the Trump administration to approve an unrelated merger deal. Paramount on Tuesday cited a previous statement regarding the Skydance merger. 'This lawsuit is completely separate from and unrelated to the Skydance transaction and the FCC approval process,' it said. Those assurances are unlikely to quiet concerns that the corporation is writing a $16 million check to Trump's future presidential library because Paramount hopes to influence the Trump administration's decision-making process. In fact, The Wall Street Journal reported last week, 'Over the past few months, Paramount leaders have been wrestling with how to pay to settle the lawsuit without exposing directors and officers to liability in potential future shareholder litigation or to criminal charges for bribing a public official.' This dynamic was not lost on Capitol Hill observers. 'Paramount appears to be trying to settle a lawsuit that it has assessed as 'completely without merit,'' Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Ron Wyden said in a recent letter to Chairwoman Shari Redstone. 'Under the federal bribery statute, it is illegal to corruptly give anything of value to public officials to influence an official act. If Paramount officials make these concessions in a quid pro quo arrangement to influence President Trump or other Administration officials, they may be breaking the law.' Now that the settlement is official, and Paramount is paying Team Trump to settle a case that appears baseless, it's likely these questions are poised to grow considerably louder. This ongoing debacle has already cost the network — over the last couple of months, the head of CBS News and the executive producer of '60 Minutes' have both stepped down — and those costs now also include a steep price tag. As for the specific figure, The New York Times reported, 'The size of the settlement, $16 million, is the same sum that ABC News agreed to pay in December to settle a defamation case filed by Mr. Trump against the network and one of its anchors, George Stephanopoulos.' This is a developing story. Check back for updates. This article was originally published on
