house. a showdown getting underway right now in a san francisco federal courtroom. [music] the heart of the issue is whether president trump overstepped his power by calling in the national guard amid protests in los angeles and calls from the white house today from iran or for iran to surrender as missiles from iran continue to strike there, growing concerns that the united states could get involved in this conflict. [music] >> this is ktvu, fox two news at noon. >> good afternoon. thank you for joining us. i'm andre senior. >> i'm gasia mikaelian hearing is just about to get underway here in san francisco federal court on california's challenge

to the white house directing national guard troops to protest in los angeles. we are waiting for the proceedings to begin. really? really. any minute now. our reporter, james torres, has been also waiting on the court action. he's live outside in san francisco to bring us up to date here. hi, james. >> gasia andre, hello to you. and we are expecting round two of court arguments between president trump and governor gavin newsom. all, of course, stemming from the demonstrations we've seen in la and president trump's decision to send more than 2000, actually close to 4000 national guard troops down to los angeles to try to handle protesters down there. we did see a very small demonstration just outside the ninth circuit court of appeals here in san francisco. many folks who are against president trump's immigration policies. the argument in court started last week in a federal court where governor gavin newsom's attorneys argued that the president did not have the right or the authority to call in the national guard troops to los angeles and violated state and federal laws. a federal judge

agreed with that, but the trump administration immediately filed an appeal, asked for a stay to the appellate court and appellate court, judge granted that about two hours after the federal court ruling came down. and that is why we are at the appellate court case hearing today. we spoke to an immigration rights and experts law expert on some of the conversations that are going on surrounding this court case. and they tell us with a three judge panel hearing the arguments today, two of which by president trump, one appointed by president biden, that really shouldn't matter when it comes to the rule of law. >> i think judges do their best job to apply the law neutrally. and we've seen appointees of democratic presidents ruling against president trump and reverse. we've seen judges appointed by democratic presidents ruling against democratic presidents. so i don't think we can just assume

something about how the court will decide based on who appointed the judges. >> change. since those arguments last week, we haven't heard from president trump too much specifically about these court conversations. we have seen some new rulings that show that a number of former retired four star generals supporting gavin newsom, the governor, gavin newsom, in these arguments, the governor, probably still alive right now, started a live substack conversation just about a few minutes ago, saying that he hopes that the courts can help support his case, although he's not expecting too much out of today. here's what he had to say just a few moments ago before we went live on the air. >> we're counting on the courts, and we're counting on people that showed up in record numbers over the weekend unprecedented protests, which is amazing to hold up this democracy. >> so here's what we expect to happen next. the attorneys will

start having those conversations really any minute now. it's expected to be an entirely virtual hearing. we will be bringing that to you, and we'll have it streaming live as it begins. now, they'll make those arguments. experts predict that we probably won't hear result of that court hearing, aka when those judges make a ruling sometime today might be a few days before we even hear a preliminary result of these hearings. and then, of course, that stay still gives president trump the power to have over the california national guard. so if he wants to, they can still mobilize within los angeles until something changes with these court decisions, of course, we'll let you know once those decisions come down. we are live this afternoon in san francisco. i'm james torres, ktvu, fox two news. >> james, thank you. today's court hearing has just gotten underway in san francisco. again, it focuses on who commands the national guard and whether the white house can take that power from states. we'll bring in our sonoma state political science professor, david mcewen. you're live to really discuss what we expect to see. thanks for being with us. what do you expect to see? what

are you looking watching for today? >> well, look, i mean, this is a really key. key historic day in some ways. who controls the troops? and what happens with this legal proceeding over the next, say, 48 to 96 hours is absolutely critical, not just for today. and just what happens here with this case in california, but what does federal intervention look like across the country moving forward? so the future implications here are big. so it's not just legal, it's also political. we do have to go beyond looking beyond just where these judges are from or where they were appointed. yes. you have judge bennett and judge miller, both appointed by donald trump. okay. jennifer sung justice sung from joe biden. but that doesn't really deal with all the matters here. there are three kind of components. do you keep the pause that they put down based upon judge breyer from last week? judge breyer has a has a hearing on friday. what happens between this hearing today and that friday scheduled

hearing? and what or do you take it out of judge breyer's hands completely? those three components really deal with this broader kind of political issue of who controls the troops. while these legal battles are going on. >> we have seen a lot of high emotion over the issue of enhanced immigration enforcement. we have seen an escalating war of words between the president and california's governor. what do you expect the tone to be in today's virtual hearing? >> yeah, i mean, you should expect that governor newsom, if they were to lose this hearing, they're faced with a very interesting predicament. do they appeal and go to the supreme court? as your viewers know, the supreme court's been favorable to donald trump largely. what does that look like? and you run the risk, if you will, of having a judgment that could affect what happens in other states. so the rhetoric that comes from the governor would be one about protests. that's what he talked about in a substack as he started. it should be one about what's going on in terms of peaceful protest and being the

resistance or loyal opposition. this is a really high stakes test, not just for the governor and for other democratic leaders. leaders in cities like for example, chicago, philly, pennsylvania, obviously new york city, all of these places across the country that donald trump wants to target the blue areas. but it's also a high wire act for the role of the military and civilian control and what that looks like and how pernicious that is across and moving forward in cities in the united states as immigration and ice conduct these raids, and what the extent of that looks like, the executive has usually been privileged in this regard or been given the benefit of the doubt, is that the case with donald trump or not, especially with this high stakes game that's going on with the raids and so forth, this will be very interesting, a very important, consequential case going on here. the ninth circuit, the ninth circuit, ninth circuit court was generally seen as liberal. it's not as liberal anymore. and so that is an important test here as well. >> how long do you think today's hearing will last?

>> no, it should last i would say less than two hours. it'd be interesting if it goes past that. >> all right. well, we're here at the start at 12:00. things are just now getting started. i appreciate your time and expertise from sonoma state there, professor david mcewen. we will note here that we're carrying the court proceedings live as they happen in the entirety of the hearing over on the fox local app. certainly, we'll cover it extensively here during this newscast as well. >> well, the middle east is inching closer to all out war. israel says it continues to target nuclear sites in iran. tehran says it will use the power to address energy issues, but israel believes it's for something more sinister. ktvu south bay reporter jesse gary monitoring developments this afternoon for us. jesse. >> andre, good afternoon to you. and president trump went on truth social just a little while ago saying we with quotes have control over the airspace above iran. now it's notable that he used the word we as in we in concert with the israelis who are leading the air sorties to destroy multiple weapons sites.

tuesday sees the u.s. upping its ante in the ongoing conflict between israel and iran. a second american aircraft carrier group headed to the region to bolster the military presence. >> help support the united states efforts towards providing air defense for israel against these incoming ballistic attacks. >> israeli airstrikes continue on targets in iran, including those in the capital of tehran. approximately 300,000 civilians are trying to evacuate, as the regional war between israel and iran enters its fifth day. israel says it launched the attacks to prevent iran from developing a nuclear weapon. >> it's believed by the iaea that they have enough radioactive material of uranium that if they increase their enrichment process, they would have enough to make nine weapons, nine nuclear weapons. >> iran's leaders say their program is for energy production only, not for making weapons. their foreign minister calls

monday's bombing of tehran a wicked act and a war crime. president donald trump tuesday unleashing a barrage of social media posts threatening iran and its supreme leader. experts say regime change in iran has been a long goal of the israeli government for decades. >> the danger in that, of course, is that it really risks devolving the entire region into an all out war that the u.s. will eventually have to go into. >> the international atomic energy agency says israeli airstrikes have had direct impacts on iran's underground centrifuge halls, which are used to enrich uranium. also tuesday, south bay congressman ro khanna saying the house should consider enacting the war powers act. the request will need to wait until friday for action as lawmakers convened and then adjourned without conducting substantive business on the house floor. the intensifying conflict has left people on opposite sides pointing a finger of blame. >> at israel's bombing iran, which is, you know, could lead us to the brink of a world war.

>> for 40 years, iran has been threatening the entire west. the entire western civilization. specifically, they chant death to israel and death to america. that if you don't act now, millions of innocent people will die. >> israel is unable to reach what they believe to be the last site that's enriching uranium. president trump could order the us air force to help using bunker buster bombs, those bombs that are dropped from high altitudes that can blast way down into the earth. that would expose the targets and allow the israelis to go in and finish it with airstrikes. of course, it could also take a regional conflict into a global conflict. so far, at least 250 people have been killed in the ongoing bombing and missile raids. we're live in our south bay bureau. jesse gary, ktvu, fox two news andre garcia, back up to you. >> and still no clear answers to what the trump administration will do next. we'll keep watching it for it. thank you so

much, jesse. >> days after he was forced to be removed from a news conference with the head of homeland security. california senator alex padilla speaks at length on the senate floor about what happened. who's the target of an abuse of power claim following this incident. >> city leaders are moving forward with plans to limit how long rvs can park on the streets of san francisco will detail the key vote happening today, and the rally against this proposal. >> giving you a live look there at acapulco, mexico, where parts of the coastline there under a watch as tropical storm eric is on the way. a better look at what is going on th e

francisco. this is what we're watching here. lawyers for governor gavin newsom and president donald trump are arguing again in front of a trio of federal judges over the white house deploying the california national guard. we have been watching this, and so far, the department of justice, attorneys for the trump administration, they have been defending their actions, the president's actions to send the national guard troops to los angeles recently, before this three judge panel. we also have samuel harbert, who is representing california. we have not heard much from him at the moment, but we'll continue to listen in. and when pertinent information comes up. actually, let's listen and see what they're saying.

>> right now. let me let me ask a question based on judge miller's hypothetical. so let's but but let's, let's let's take a look at the facts that judge miller posited. and let's say that the problem was limited to california, that there was nothing to suggest, that the problem was beyond california. in your view, if the if a hypothetical future president made the decision to call up in response, the militia of every state and the district of columbia, so 51 militia, would it also be your view that that decision by this hypothetical future president would be entirely unreviewable? >> yes, because the statute says the president may call into federal service members and units of the guard of any state in such numbers that he considers necessary. that is, an express delegation. that couldn't be any more clear that

the president gets to decide how many forces are necessary to quell the rebellion to execute federal laws. but again, bringing it back to this case, that, of course, that's not what he did. in this case, he only called up 2000 national guardsmen. the secretary of defense found it was necessary to call up an additional 2000. and the facts on the ground have justified that decision. those guardsmen are necessary on the ground today to prevent breaches of the federal buildings, to protect ice officers when they are conducting their law enforcement operations. the guardsmen are not conducting law enforcement. they are charged with a protective mission, not a law enforcement mission. >> all right. we are streaming this entire thing right now. this very important hearing on the fox local app. you can watch it there live right now for as long as it's happening. you heard david mckeown say just a short time ago, it shouldn't last more than a couple of hours, but we'll continue to watch it and dip into it throughout this newscast. if you want to stick with us. none of this story. the city attorney of

san francisco, a sanctuary city in a sanctuary state, is pushing back against president trump's direction for federal agents to step up their enforcement of immigration laws in cities run by democrats. president trump on social media cited los angeles, chicago and new york in detailing what he calls the largest mass deportation operation in u.s. history. meanwhile, protests against enhanced immigration enforcement have quieted somewhat in recent days here in the bay area and los angeles as well. while san francisco was not mentioned in the president's post, city leaders there say they are standing against the president. >> we have defended ourselves in the courts successfully, both during the first trump administration and during this one. we will have to respond based on whatever happens. but it's clear to us that every day this administration is engaged in unlawful action. >> legal experts say the president's order will likely stand as the executive order can largely deploy law enforcement assets as it sees fit.

>> senator alex padilla of california spoke to the u.s. senate today about an incident in which he was forcibly removed from a homeland security news conference. three federal agents took down senator padilla as he tried to ask dhs secretary kristi noem a question. this is what happened on thursday in los angeles amid ongoing enhanced immigration enforcement and protests in that city. senator padilla became emotional today when describing what happened. >> i was pushed and pulled, struggled to maintain my balance. i was forced to the ground. first on my knees. and then flat on my chest. and as i was handcuffed and marched down a hallway, repeatedly asking,

why am i being detained? not once did they tell me why. senator padilla also delivered a rebuke to the trump administration's unprecedented militarization of los angeles. he called for senators on both sides of the aisle to speak against what he called president trump's abuse of power. >> are we truly prepared to live in a country where the president can deploy the armed forces to decide which duly elected governors and mayors should be allowed to lead their constituents? now, throughout this country's history, we've had conflict, we've had tumult, but we've never had a tyrant as a commander in chief. and that is not by. >> the white house. and department of homeland security have not commented on the senator's remarks today. >> well, spacex's falcon nine rocket left a spectacular glow

over the skies of southern california and into arizona last night. check this out. this footage by the san diego city college grove center shows the rocket making its way across the southern california sky. man, it looks really cool there. spacex says the rocket launched 26 satellites into orbit from the vandenberg space force base. >> incredible, right. if we were to turn skyward in this noon lunch hour on a tuesday, rosemary oroczo meteorologist here to share how we'd probably need the sunscreen. right, rosemary? >> absolutely. and it's a warmer day, so you may need ac if at all possible, giving you a live look here over san francisco. we do have blue skies. started out with plenty of sunshine over the bay. just patches of fog along the coast. that's about it. a little bit of a northwest flow up above and at the surface, a very weak onshore breeze pushing through parts. even a fairfield at this hour. just five miles per hour. napa reporting seven, oakland reporting eight and

concord coming in from the northwest temperature wise five 1015 degrees warmer compared to yesterday at this time where we are up by 11 degrees in novato we are up by ten. concord and livermore, you are feeling the heat this afternoon. temperatures ranging from upper 50s at the coast, a very microclimate pattern in place. low 60s in san francisco, upper 60s in oakland, upper 70s low 80s already at this hour for inland cities. and with that, we know temperatures could actually go another 5 to 10 degrees warmer by the second half of the day for our inland cities. upper 80s the forecast for santa rosa, upper 80s in concord and closer to the bay. widespread 70s expected 76 in hayward as well as redwood city. all right, let's head south of the border once again. talked about eric here right before the break. right now, still a tropical storm but is expected to strengthen fairly quickly as it rolls through the next couple of days and making tracks towards the areas of acapulco right now

expected to come ashore, the thursday time frame could still be a category two, maybe category one before it makes landfall, and will again turn back to a tropical storm. so very strong winds and heavy rain expected along this stretch of the pacific coastline. we'll be tracking that for you, of course, over the next couple of days. but eric, right now still a tropical storm. and the winds are expected to hit 65mph. a little bit later today, i'll have a better look at what we can expect here at home, because the temperatures continue to rise into wednesday before we cool into the first weekend of summer. more on this coming up in just a little bit. >> all right, rosemary, thank you much. growing concerns in san francisco that city leaders are not doing enough to protect pedestrians and cyclists. what some say n ds to happen to

(fisher investments) at fisher investments, we may look like other money managers, but we're different. (other money manager) you can't be that different. (fisher investments) we are. we have a team of specialists not only in investing, but also in financial and estate planning and more.

(other money manager) your clients rely on you for all that? (fisher investments) yes. and as a fiduciary, we always put their interests first. (other money manager) but you still sell commission- based products, right? (fisher investments) no. we have a simple management fee structured so we do better when our clients do better. (other money manager) huh, we're more different than i thought! (fisher investments) at fisher investments, we're clearly different. david trusts prevagen for his brain and this is his story. nice to meet ya. my name is david. i've been a pharmacist for 44 years. when i have customers come in, i recommend prevagen. number one, because it's safe and effective. does not require a prescription. and i've been taking it quite a while myself and i love it when the customers come back in and tell me, "david, that really works so good for me." makes my day. prevagen has been the number-one selling

brain supplement nationwide for over 10 years. a new report from the san francisco civil grand jury is calling a strategy to eliminate traffic fatalities and serious injuries a failure. vision zero recognizes that people will make mistakes, so roads and policy should be designed to minimize these incidents. research found that despite a goal to eliminate traffic deaths, last year was the deadliest on city streets since 2007. the jury blames a near-total collapse in traffic law enforcement by the sfpd. it wants the city to renew its commitment to enforcement, speed up safety projects and launch new education campaigns.

>> today, san francisco city workers will protest layoffs and service cuts. city workers from several trade unions will rally outside city hall before a board of supervisors meeting. they're calling on supervisors to balance the budget without gutting public services. they say the proposed budget will cut staff from fire, public health, emergency management, homelessness and supportive housing departments. right now, advocates for the unhoused are rallying outside an sfmta meeting. union leaders are expected to vote on part of a proposal from the mayor that would create a two hour parking restriction for rv residents. critics argue that would displace more families and only exacerbate the homelessness crisis. [music] a hearing is underway this hour in san francisco pitting the white house against the state of california. the questions about who has ultimate control of the national guard. >> and you've heard us many times say today is a spare the air day, a deeper dive into how those alerts are issued in some of the major causes of poor air

boom! so munch for you. sounds like someone's got the munchies. is it too munch to ask for you to play a little bit better? wouldn't make munch difference with your aim. hard to miss your big head. okay... hey, we said no head jokes. build your own munchie meal. or get mine! welcome to jack in the box!

you know i'm never afraid to lay it on thick. like with my 100% beef patty melt, with two melty cheeses and grilled onions all on my famous toasted sourdough! it's beefy, it's melty, and it's back! starting at $4.99. get so munch more! welcome to jack in the box! of california continue to argue in front of a trio of federal judges over the white house's deployment of california national guard troops to the los angeles region. just so you know, we are learning that just a few minutes ago, the representative for the trump administration wrapped up the initial round, spoke for just under 30 minutes. we're about to hear from california's

representative. it appears one of the justices is speaking. let's listen in together. >> and as i read the district court's order on page 23 of the order, i believe it's denominated 8283. in in the record. i read the district court's order as saying that as long as the president can, in some way or manner, execute the laws of the united states, that subsection three of one, two, 406 isn't met. that although there's no numbers in there, it suggests that if the president can 50% execute the laws, or 70%, or 80%, or maybe even 15% that the that this isn't met and that what is required is that the president be wholly unable to execute the laws of the united states for him to be able

to invoke the statute. so my first question is, am i reading the district court's order? right? if i'm not, please tell me where i'm where i'm wrong. and if i am reading it right, does the does california agree with the district court's reading of the statute? >> your honor, i'm not sure that the district court's analysis there needs to be read so expansively, and the state is certainly not asking the court to adopt that interpretation of prong three. all we're asking the court to conclude, at least at this very early stage of the litigation, is at a bare minimum for prong three of the statute to exert any meaningful limit on executive authority in this area, it has to mean more than what defendants are suggesting. it has to at least mean that the president comes forward with some attempted justification, or at least attempt to exhaust, or at least contemplate more modest

alternatives than immediately reaching for the most. >> but but going back to a case that the united states cites martin v mott. i mean, one of the things the court said in that case is we are all of opinion that the authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen belongs exclusively to the president, and that his decision is conclusive upon all other persons. and the court was including itself in the all other persons. even if we were to agree with you that there is some limited role of judicial review, how can with the facts here and the language in martin v mott. >> we're listening in here. >> as one of the justices. >> questioned, california's representative samuel harbaugh. it's a federal appeals court in san francisco hearing arguments today to determine whether president trump, against the wishes of the governor, can keep

using members of california's national guard to protect immigration enforcement agents and quiet protests we've seen popping up in the southland. the hearing just got underway about half an hour ago. the representative for the president spoke first. we are now seeing california take its turn. we're going to keep dipping into this throughout this newscast. if you'd like to watch the hearing live in its entirety, you can do that. it's right now happening on the fox local app. >> an increase in immigration enforcement could have a major effect on just about every aspect of our lives. a new report out today from the bay area council shows the economy could take a massive hit. abby royce is the research director for the bay area council and joins us live at noon to talk about her findings. abby, thank you for joining us this afternoon. >> thanks for having me. >> all right. so, abby, it says here our economy would take a big hit. tell us what in a in a number figure that would mean. >> sure. yeah. so, you know, we spent the last six months researching sort of what the math really looks like when we remove this massive chunk of our workforce from the state

economy. and we found that california stands to lose $275 billion of its gdp. that's 9% of the overall state gdp. i mean, they make up 33% of the state's farm workers and 26% of the construction laborers, undocumented workers. and these jobs are critical to the california economy and its infrastructure. and what happens when you lose workers in these industries? we found that, you know, construction gdp would shrink by 16%. california, the agricultural gdp would shrink by 14%. and i mean, these are industries that are already struggling with with labor shortages, lose this workforce. and, you know, we're not building homes or harvesting crops. prices go up for everyone. you know, we produce in the state of california, one third of all us vegetables and three quarters of the fruits and nuts were also the top milk producer. you know, the big takeaway here is that disruptions here in the state of california affect the entire nation and consumers everywhere. >> i mean, based on what your report is saying here, i mean, this would have a pretty

devastating effect on california's economy, much less the national economy as well. is that what this report kind of says here? >> yeah, yeah, that's really what we're saying, is that, you know, the cost of mass deportation would just ripple into every aspect of the economy, regardless of whether, you know, you're an immigrant or are in a, you know, an immigrant, concentrated community. you know, this would affect not just agriculture, but also construction. i mean, california needs to build over 312,000 new homes each year to meet demand, according to the state's, you know, housing and community development department. last year, we built less than a third of that, right. and we're in a housing shortage and housing affordability crisis. and immigrants and undocumented workers are a huge part of that robust construction workforce. under a mass deportation that just worsens those shortages and delays housing projects and drives up costs for everybody. >> all right, so you're saying that based on your study here, $4.1 trillion is contributed to the economy from this labor force here that is under threat

of deportation. san joaquin valley, bay area, inland empire, los angeles would experience the worst impacts. do we know how, particularly for the bay area folks, where that would hit? >> yeah, i mean, in the bay area, 33% of the bay area are immigrants of any status, legal or undocumented. and of that 33%, 19% are undocumented workers. a lot of course, we don't have big farms in san francisco or, you know, most parts of the bay area, but that would hit our hospitality industry, our food service industry, you know, home health care and elderly care. i mean, we're we have an aging population and that's, you know, an industry that's only been growing and struggling to fill roles. not to mention our sales tax revenue is still down in our major city centers and downtowns. you know, we're struggling to recoup a lot of that pre-pandemic foot traffic and vitality. and when you lose a huge part of the workforce that keeps our cities afloat, that, you know, would only further devastate that recovery

that we're so trying to achieve in our in our downtowns across the bay area. >> yeah, i wish we had more time to go into it, because you have a lot of stats and figures here. abby royce, research director with the bay area council. thank you so much for joining us this afternoon. >> of course. thanks for having me. >> the first day of summer comes later this week. the warmer weather usually brings spare the air alerts as pollutants tend to stick around in the air longer. ktvu meteorologist roberta gonzalez out in it in san francisco. to roberta, give us a good look at who determines that an alert is needed and really how that process is decided. >> great idea there, garcia. we are here in san francisco. they call this neighborhood. this new neighborhood east cut. and this is home of the bay area air quality management district. so in order to suffice your question there or your advice, garcia, we're bringing in the big guns here. we have aaron richardson, and he is a senior public relations officer with the bay area air quality management district. and happy

almost summer. >> thanks, robert. >> appreciate it. so with summer usually comes a little bit of problems with our air quality. first off, tell people at home what is the spare the air day? >> yeah, spare the air day is it's an alert that we issue when we forecast that the air quality is going to be above the federal health standard. so when we think air quality is going to be unhealthy, we'll issue a spare the air alert. >> okay. so today i'm looking at blue sky gorgeous blue sky. but then on my map back at the studio i put together already the air quality watch with rosemary on this and the air quality. for today we have a little bit of a yellow dot over the central coast, also over the san francisco area, but it looks gorgeous here. why do we have moderate air quality in the forecast today? >> well, we just forecast that air quality was going to be rising up above the sort of green good category into the moderate. it's not always visually recognizable when air quality gets, you know, a little bit above green. but we are seeing, you know, a little little bit of a spike of air pollution, but nothing that

anybody really needs to be concerned about. most of the region is in the green category with just a little bit of yellow in some locations. >> okay, so when you look in the yellow dots, if you're at home, what does that mean to people? >> the yellow means that air quality is moderate. it's increasing above the good is just great for everybody. moderate. you know, for most people it's not an issue. if you are extremely sensitive to air pollution, then maybe you want to be a little more careful about exercising or doing a lot of activity outside. but for most people, moderate is not that much of a concern yet. >> so when we start to get into the moderate levels and to the red, the bad levels there, what constitutes that? i learned that with emissions you have stationary and you have mobile. what is a stationary emission? >> well, stationary sources are like refineries and factories and gas stations, things that don't move. they're actually less of a of an emitter than our mobile sources, which are either on road like cars and trucks and everything we're driving, and also off road equipment that can

be like construction or trains or boats, even in planes and things like that. so but. >> yeah, i get it because like the farming equipment that causes big problems in the central valley, right. >> that can yeah, there can be, you know, yes, they are a source of large emissions in the central valley. >> all right. so when we have these kind of spare the air alerts and we know that the stationary emissions. well first off, do refinery emissions affect us. >> refinery emissions are usually more of a little bit of a local problem. i mean, they're, you know, ten, 15%. well, all of the stationary emissions are maybe ten, 15% of the ozone precursors for ozone pollution in the summertime, which is what we typically think of as smog. so it's really the mobile sources that are of more concern. but of course, people, you know who live near refineries, if there's an upset or something, then that's definitely an issue for them. >> yeah. and then if people at home perhaps miss rosemary or mark or steve giving the

forecast for the bay area air quality, where can they go for more information? >> well, one of the best resources when there's a wildfire is the epa's fire and smoke map, because that both takes our our sources and also all of the sort of localized sources that of monitors that people are using. and it just shows all of the readings. so that's good for pm pollution, for ozone. the epa has an air now site that has a map that shows, you know, kind of how ozone is developing over the day. and then we issue an air quality forecast on both the spare, the air and the md.gov site so that people can see what the forecast is going to be the day beforehand. >> yeah. and we got you covered. we have that link on our website as well. or just make it simple, watch rosemary or myself and we give you the air quality on a daily basis as well, especially as we enter the summer season. and summer officially arrives this friday. reporting outside the bay area air quality management district in san francisco. garcia and andre, back to you in the studio. and

rosemary, let me just tell you your forecast is spot on. it is gorgeous here today. >> thank you roberta. >> thank you roberta i'll actually take it from here. it does look gorgeous in the city of san francisco this afternoon. and here's a live look from calaveras reservoir, where we've got blue skies overhead here as well. this is the type of pattern that starts to turn our air quality just a little bit, right. the lighter winds, the hotter conditions, when that sunlight begins to cook the elements in the atmosphere and making it poor air quality. thankfully, this setup not going to last too long. we're going to cool things down once again in the days ahead, and the onshore breeze will be stronger than it is right now. we've got a northwest flow overhead and again at the surface a little bit more of a localized sea breeze, but it's much weaker compared to what we had just yesterday. the system that provided us with the cooler air and the stronger onshore breeze now pushed off to the east. we have a ridge of high pressure that will be strengthening in temporarily by thursday, begins to break down once again. and this trough here, setting up

over the west is going to swing in and hold steady through the weekend. and with that, temperatures will come up over the next couple of days and then drop all the way through the first weekend of summer. the winds across the bay area at this time generally light anywhere from 5 to 10mph onshore. novato. napa. oakland. all reporting a southwest breeze coming in from the south. fairfield a light one for you there in concord. a northwest gust at 17mph. temperature wise, we are noticing the difference. we started out with plenty of sunshine. our temperatures quickly rebounded, and now we sit at 64 degrees in san francisco, a low 80s in the north bay, and upper 70s to low 80s for the inner east bay, 80 degrees right now in concord. a comparison from yesterday and what we are expecting for today. a notable jump, especially inland san francisco at 67, is right on track for this time of year, but our inland cities will be a little bit above average. we've got 87 expected for santa rosa, 87 in concord. the heat

will be on tomorrow, temperatures continuing to climb low to mid 90s for our hotter spots. upper 70s around the bay. low 60s at the coast. getting into thursday. friday summer solstice at 7:41 p.m. temperatures very comfortable, especially inland. low 80s expected for the weekend for inland cities, upper 60s to low 70s around the bay. low 60s at the coast. back to you. >> all right, rosemary, thank you. we continue to follow the latest developments happening from a san francisco federal courtroom where the state of california is challenging the white house using national guard troops earlier this month, where arguments stand at this very nt.

for governor gavin newsom and president donald trump. they continue their arguments in front of a trio of federal judges over the white house deploying the california national guard. this is something that we've been watching for the last 45 minutes or so. it started about noontime. we have the three judge panel that's hearing the argument right now. we have mark bennett of honolulu. top right hand corner. we have eric miller of seattle, who you see in the top left hand corner. and jennifer sung of portland is the other judge in this case. and speaking since 1230, samuel hubert, who is defending the california or actually arguing that the trump administration overreached his powers by ordering national guard troops

to intervene during protests that were taking place down in los angeles. we'll continue to follow this story. we have folks out in the field and in the court watching this, and we'll bring you an update when we have more information here. we want to bring in sonoma state professor david mckeown, who has been listening into today's hearing. david, have you heard anything that stands out to you thus far? >> i think there's two kind of components going on so far. justice miller has asked a number of questions, both of the trump administration lawyer and governor newsom's lawyer, relative to questions that might come up on appeal, questions that might really have an audience at the supreme court level. and justice bennett has also asked a number of questions, and they've interjected with each lawyer as they've presented elements of the case. one thing to pay attention to the second element here is what they seem particularly interested in is the role of the executive, and under what conditions they can intervene and surpass a governor's power. what we've seen in los angeles, in terms of

the introduction and federalization of troops really hadn't happened until since 1963, and that's when jfk went over to the head of the alabama governor to introduce national guard troops into alabama because of race relations and what was going on there. so this is unprecedented at some level. it has huge implications, particularly for those blue cities, for democratic cities moving forward. so this decision as it comes down, whether it keeps the pause going, whether that affects the hearing that happens on friday or whether they move completely out of judge breyer's ruling from last week and move events up to the supreme court. all of that comes out of the rather consequential hearing here. so what they're asking and the audiences they're picking and the elements of the law they're looking at extend into kind of some really deep, deep questions about the american body politic. >> professor, did you hear anything new from the trump administration's representative? if you can sort of nutshell what the argument there. as he went first. >> yeah. well, one of the nutshells is that the state and

local law enforcement, state and local officials were incapable of governing what was going on in los angeles and across the country and needed help and required this assistance and at least documented so far, according to the news and media feeds. we haven't seen those requests out of local law enforcement from los angeles. they thought they could handle what was going on. so that was an interesting kind of turn of events and has, if you will, implications for those other cities across the country. >> what about the argument? i'm sorry, just to follow up here. i think i read, in fact, i did in the l.a. times saying that $20 million worth of damage was done in the riots we saw following the peaceful protest in los angeles. that figure 20 million. does that mean anything in court today? >> yeah. i mean, in terms of whether or not local officials can handle what is going on is the key element here. it's not just the kind of an abstract notion of federalism. i mean, we're a country that has a lot of government even though we don't like government. but if you look at los angeles proper, you've got 9000 members just in the lapd alone. and when local officials aren't requesting assistance, what is the level of

damage or what is kind of the architecture around that for when the federal government can intervene? and the belief is that this will be used as a template to move across the country. that's not a partizan notion. it's a notion of whether the federal executive, whether the president in upholding the laws, how far he can go and whether that test is property law or some combination thereof, especially if local actors are unwilling or unable to act. and what is that litmus test or that threshold? key questions i think of this hearing today. >> so i wonder, so what comes out of this hearing those decisions, what that threshold is for when a president can intervene? are those coming up? because so far what we've heard are pretty much legal arguments debated back and forth between both parties. here, the judges and both the doj and california's attorneys as well. but what do you say about that, that litmus test, is that going to be discussed, that number, that threshold between all parties here? >> yeah, i mean, the jurists are wrestling with this because this is kind of an open ended question in terms of the power of the executive, the unitary

executive. what are the president's obligations to faithfully execute the laws? and there's this really kind of key question. it sounds academic, but it's much more profound than that. what is justiciable? what is the court's role? what is the appropriate role for the court to rule on these issues? is this a political question or is this a legal question, some combination therein? this is a tough test for these three. and they have to write this decision very quickly because it impacts the next hearing that's coming up on friday. so in that sense, what is happening is absolutely critical here and has implications down the road. and for the rest of the trump administration, we're only at day 148. we're not even 150 days in. so this is going to have really profound impact moving forward and far beyond even just the area of immigration. >> all right. professor mcewen, up at sonoma state, thank you for your time and expertise. i will quickly clarify number i threw out there that $20 million refers to police overtime. that's the big chunk of it. and then several million for the vandalism cost as well in los angeles. we're taking a quick break. if you'd like to watch

the hearing in its entirety, we have that for you. it's over on the fox local app. if you haven't downloaded it already, you can watch the entire thing there. >> all right. the san francisco giants new star infielder will address the media today after being traded to the giants. what ns are s

giant intel is laying off thousands of workers. the job cuts will eliminate up to 20% of intel's factory workforce. that's over 10,000 jobs globally. more. most of these are overseas. in a statement, intel says the layoffs are essential for it to meet its affordability challenges and current financial position. the layoffs are set to begin next month. >> during june's pride month and beyond. a powerful support system in the south bay is lifting up the lgbtq plus community's pflag. san jose peninsula has been going strong for 40 plus years now. it's part of a national organization rooted in education and

advocacy. earlier on mornings on two, the nine board member sarah larson joined us to share how the nonprofit is building bridges and breaking barriers. >> right now, there's a lot of confusion and fear. advocacy can take many forms. it can be cheering on an inclusive sports team. it can be showing up at school board meetings, emailing, calling or visiting in person. our representatives, including our state and local representatives, or even going to sacramento in large groups, whatever is needed. >> if you'd like to donate to pflag san jose peninsula, you can scan the qr code on your screen now or head to ktvu.com day. >> new giants slugger rafael devers will be speaking for the first time as the san francisco giants this afternoon. the three time all star was traded from the boston red sox to the giants in exchange for pitchers jordan

hicks and kyle harrison, along with two other prospects. giants fans are hopeful that the 28 year old slugger will give san francisco a boost to the playoffs this season. >> that 100% need a big hitter, and i'm hopefully this will this will take up that role. >> i'm excited to have a have a new hitter on the team. and you know, i think it took a little bit of a player taking on that responsibility, but hopefully it will turn out for us. >> new opportunities. you know giants are a good team. you know they're well respected in the in the industry. you know he's probably got a good thing going for him and the other players that we've recruited on lately. you know it'll be a good thing. >> devers is expected to be in the starting lineup tonight when the giants host the cleveland guardians. >> all right. let's take a look at what was found outside of virginia motel room. it was an alligator. fairfax county police responded to a caller who reported seeing the reptile near their room. this is body camera footage, and it shows responding officers locating the alligator highlighted in that red circle, along with its owner off premises. the owner says the

they were moving the reptile from new york to a north carolina zoo. there there's that big boy or girl. the unlikely visitor, along with its owner, were told to leave the motel. the owner was not cited, but. wow. of all the things, andre, i mean, that's. that alligator is walking with no shame. >> i'm shocked it happened in virginia and not florida, honestly. >> and you say that as a florida. >> as a person. yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, you can say that. i can say it. right. exactly. you know florida, man. >> yeah. >> but it's. >> just something to see. >> yeah, welcome to like it or not. my name is garcia mikel. it's a fun show where we take on a slew of topics, and our panel weighs in on whether they like it or not. this is not the news, but you will see some familiar faces, starting with sal castaneda as well as pam cook and rosemary rosco. thanks for being here. today's theme of the show is, you know