Luévano Consent Decree determined in 1981 written civil service test unfair to Black and Hispanic applicants

“Today, the Justice Department removed that barrier and reopened federal employment opportunities based on merit—not race.” – U.S. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon on Aug. 1, 2025.

“The Decree has had its usefulness and a tremendous effect on the country. Millions of minorities and women hold jobs because of that class action lawsuit. It wasn’t DEI. It didn’t just benefit minorities and women. The (alternative) Outstanding Scholar Program…was actually used 70% by whites.” – Angel Luévano

By Allen D. Payton

On Friday, August 1, 2025, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon announced that the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ) had ended a 44-year-old decree mandating race-based government hiring. It’s named for Antioch resident Angel G. Luévano, who, with a group of attorneys in 1979, brought a class action lawsuit on behalf of African Americans and Hispanics over the Professional and Administrative Career Examination (PACE). They claimed disparate impact against them based on their test results violated Title VII’s equal employment opportunity provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Dhillon claimed the decree “imposed draconian test review and implementation procedures” on the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

The 1979 Luévano v. Campbell lawsuit, against the then and first Director of the Officer of Personnel Management, Alan Campbell, resulted in a settlement during the final days of President Jimmy Carter’s Administration, just prior to President Ronald Reagan’s inauguration, eliminating use of the PACE test. According to court documents filed in March 2025 by the USDOJ, “on January 9, 1981, after two years of litigation, Plaintiffs and OPM jointly moved for ‘an order granting preliminary approval to a Consent Decree.’ Luevano, 93 F.R.D. at 72. The parties signed the Decree eleven days prior to the change in administration, and the Court accepted the Decree on February 26, 1981.”

In addition, according to the Civil Rights Litigation Clearing House Case Summary, in the Decree the “federal government in part agreed to…establish two special hiring programs, Outstanding Scholar and Bilingual/Bicultural.”

The lawsuit title was later changed to Luevano v. Ezell, named for Charles Ezell, the current Acting OPM Director. This year’s court filing reads, “Federal law requires many federal jobs be filled based on merit alone. Beginning in 1974, OPM employed a test to do just that. The Professional and Administrative Career Examination (‘PACE’) was a challenging, written examination that measured cognitive and other skills. It quickly proved an effective way of predicting future job performance, thereby increasing the efficiency and capability of the federal workforce. But it did not last long.”

In a Aug. 1 post on Dhillon’s official X (formerly Twitter) account she wrote, “Another federal government DEI program bites the dust! Today, the @CivilRights Division ended a 44-year-old decree that bound the federal government to use DEI in its hiring practices” and shared the news release from the USDOJ announcing the end to the decree:

“Today, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division ended a court-imposed decree initiated by the Carter administration, which limited the hiring practices of the federal government based on flawed and outdated theories of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

In Luevano v. Ezell, the Court dismissed a consent decree based on a lawsuit initially brought by interest groups representing federal employees in 1979. The decree entered in 1981 imposed draconian test review and implementation procedures on the Office of Personnel Management—and consequently all other federal agencies—requiring them to receive permission prior to using any tests for potential federal employees, in an attempt to require equal testing outcomes among all races of test-takers.

“For over four decades, this decree has hampered the federal government from hiring the top talent of our nation,” said Dhillon. “Today, the Justice Department removed that barrier and reopened federal employment opportunities based on merit—not race.”

“It’s simple, competence and merit are the standards by which we should all be judged; nothing more and nothing less,” said U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro for the District of Columbia. “It’s about time people are judged, not by their identity, but instead ‘by the content of their character.’”

Luévano Responds

In response to the decree’s dismissal, Luévano said, “I agreed to vacate the Decree through the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) because I don’t want to make bad law. There are two interveners on the other side that wanted to broaden the attack.”

Asked when he agreed to it, he said, “Last week. Attorneys for both sides met with the judge last Thursday to resolve the matter.”

“The Decree has had its usefulness and a tremendous effect on the country,” Luévano continued. “Millions of minorities and women hold jobs because of that class action lawsuit. The Decree affected 118 job classifications in federal hiring nationwide.”

“I’m extremely proud of the effect that it has had on federal hires and getting minorities and women into federal jobs,” he stated. “It affected my decision to join, it was the key for me to join federal civil rights compliance in the Labor Department.”

Asked why he was the lead plaintiff he said, “I took the PACE exam because I wanted to get into a federal job. I achieved an 80 on the test – a passing grade, even though it’s been reported I flunked the exam. That’s not true. The result was I did not get referred to federal openings. They were only referring people with a 100 on their tests to jobs.”

“I learned about the case through the Legal Aid Society which had brought many cases in the construction industry. Our unit was successful in getting the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to be effective. I went to them and said, ‘that happened to me’ in the Office of Personnel Management. That’s the lead HR department in the federal government. They’re the gatekeepers to federal employment.”

“I asked them, is there something we can do about this. They said, ‘funny you should ask. We are looking for someone to do something about this’ and we began working on the lawsuit,” he shared.

“One of the things I was able to achieve was alternatives to merit selection in federal employment, the Outstanding Scholar and Bilingual/Bicultural programs that each agency implemented,” Luévano stated.

“I gave up back pay and also the class, to get them to agree to the decree,” he continued. “When you win a case, you usually get a settlement. But I was the one who gave up back pay for myself and for the class to get those two remedies. That was really big. That is huge. Who gets alternatives to merit-based hiring at the national level? They used it to bring in minorities and women.”

“It wasn’t DEI. It didn’t just benefit minorities and women. The Outstanding Scholar Program as an alternative to discriminatory merit-based hiring was actually used 70% by whites,” he stated. “But that’s OK. I wanted to crack the discriminatory employment barriers to federal hiring.”

“When I was in D.C. I met with the second in command at the OPM, while we were in Puerto Rico. He said, ‘Angel, you know it’s not what you know. It’s who you know. I said to him, ‘I know you!’ He replied, ‘But I don’t have any power.’ I’ve learned that every where I’ve gone. As you go up the ladder it gets narrower and narrower and harder and harder.”

“We used the impact theory to prove there was discrimination. There are only two theories, that one and disparate treatment,” Luevano explained.

“I negotiated through my lawyers,” he continued. “We had a lot of attorneys. They included the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights out of D.C., MALDEF, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, NOW, and the Legal Aid Society of Alameda County where I worked out of Oakland as a senior law clerk in the impact litigation unit.”

He started as a summer management intern with the General Services Administration as a GS-5 employee in 1972 while in law school. Then he went to work for the Department of Defense compliance division in Burlingame.

They merged all the compliance divisions under the Labor Department.

“They leaped me from a GS-9 to a 12,” he stated. “So, I skipped 10 and 11. I met all of the qualifications.”

He ultimately rose to the level of a GS-15 as Deputy Director of Program Operations for the Labor Department’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs.

“I was number four in the agency nationwide and retired after 30 years in government,” Luevano shared. “That happened to a guy who wouldn’t have even gotten into a federal job because of PACE. Yet, I was qualified, I earned it and I moved up.”

“I had a great career. I helped write the regulations on how to detect employment system discrimination and I trained the trainers nationwide,” he continued. “That was because of my law background. I went to Hastings for four years. Even though I don’t have the degree, I have the equivalent of a Master’s in Law.”

About the timing for the lawsuit settlement Luévano shared, “Our lawyers showed up. Their lawyers showed up, the attorneys for the outgoing Carter Administration. The attorneys for the Reagan Administration showed up and wanted to put a stop to the resolution of the Consent Decree. The judge said, ‘No, you’re not in power, yet.’”

“We were all happy, we signed the Decree and made history,” he stated. “I’m humbled by this tremendous achievement.”

Luévano was recognized for his efforts at one of the conferences of LULAC, the League of United Latin American Citizens, in which he later rose to the level of California State Director and V.P for the Far West. Image de California gave him an award during one of their conferences at which he spoke about the Consent Decree.

“If we hadn’t accomplished that we’d still be back in the dark ages of discrimination,” Luévano stated.

“I’m actually writing a book, a memoir about it,” he added. “I’m working with Harvard on that.”

Luévano even has his own Wikipedia page.

He and his wife Argentina have been involved in the Antioch community with the Kiwanis Club of the Delta-Antioch, where he was president last year and Argentina is currently secretary. They both also served as Lt. Governors for the organization in Division 26, Area 9 in Northern California. Then Angel was elected as Trustee for the entire Division which includes California, Nevada and Hawaii.

In addition, since May 2004, Angel has also served as Executive Director for Todos Unidos, an Antioch-based non-profit organization established to raise the educational, economic, health and social outcomes of underserved communities along the Suisun Bay and the greater San Joaquin Delta area.

Will talk about state’s 30 lawsuits against Trump Administration

Congressman Mark DeSaulnier (D, CA-10) announced he will host a virtual town hall with special guest California Attorney General Rob Bonta on defending constitutional rights and protecting Californians from the Trump Administration’s harmful policies on Tuesday, August 5th at 5:45 p.m. PT.

According to DeSaulnier, “Amid the Trump Administration’s attacks on immigrant and LGBTQ+ communities, federal funding, environmental protections, and more, A.G. Rob Bonta has been a staunch defender of the rule of law on behalf of us here in CA-10 (California’s 10th Congressional District) and across California. He’s joining us for a virtual town hall.”

Since President Trump was inaugurated in January, Attorney General Bonta has filed more than 30 lawsuits on behalf of Californians against what he claims are the Administration’s illegal and unconstitutional policies. DeSaulnier and Bonta will discuss recent successes in the courts and in Congress and the path ahead to check what are believed to be the President’s abuses of power. They will also take audience questions live.

Virtual Town Hall

Tuesday, August 5th

5:45 – 6:45 p.m. PT

Hosted on Zoom

Streamed to YouTube

To reserve your spot and receive a Zoom link or to request special accommodations, visit https://desaulnier.house.gov/town-hall-rsvp or call (925) 933-2660.

This will be Congressman DeSaulnier’s 240th town hall and mobile district office hour since coming to Congress in January 2015.

Convicted April 30, Devon Wenger claims innocence, calls them “bogus charges against me,” awaits sentencing, suing APD for retaliation, discrimination, hostile workplace harassment

Also faces trial in July for deprivation of rights under color of law

All part of FBI investigation of multiple Antioch, Pittsburg police officers

OAKLAND – A federal jury on April 30, 2025, convicted former Antioch police officer Devon Wenger of one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute anabolic steroids and one count of obstruction of justice. The jury’s verdict follows a three-day trial before Senior U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White.

Wenger, 33, was previously employed as a police officer with the Antioch Police Department. According to court documents and evidence presented at trial, Wenger conspired with Daniel Harris, who was at the time also a police officer with the Antioch Police Department, to distribute anabolic steroids to a third individual, and then deleted evidence of this conspiracy from his cellular phone.

“Instead of upholding the law, as he swore an oath to do, Devon Wenger conspired with a fellow officer to sell illegal anabolic steroids.  When the FBI arrived at his home to investigate him, he then doubled down by destroying evidence of his crime. Crimes like these by a police officer have a corrosive effect on the public’s trust in law enforcement.  Thanks to today’s jury conviction, Mr. Wenger will now face sentencing for his violations of law,” said Acting United States Attorney Patrick D. Robbins.

“When Devon Wenger broke the law and then tried to cover his tracks, he didn’t just commit a crime — he betrayed the trust of the community he was sworn to serve. After learning the FBI was outside his home with a search warrant, he chose to delete evidence rather than come clean. That kind of misconduct corrodes public confidence in law enforcement,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge Sanjay Virmani. “Today’s guilty verdict makes clear that the FBI will hold accountable anyone who abuses the authority and responsibility of public service.”

According to the evidence presented at trial, in February 2022, Wenger set up the sale of anabolic steroids, a Schedule III controlled substance, between Harris and a third individual. Harris was also charged in this case and pleaded guilty to his role in the conspiracy on Sept. 17, 2024. Law enforcement officials seized the package of anabolic steroids destined for Harris before they arrived, although Wenger continued to communicate with Harris about supplying the third individual with anabolic steroids, including offering to give this individual some of Wenger’s own while they waited for the delayed package.

On March 23, 2022, at 8:03 a.m., the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) began calling and sending text messages to Wenger telling him that they were outside of his residence with a warrant. It was not until 9:00 a.m. that Wenger appeared for the FBI to seize Wenger’s cellular phone. Later forensic examination of that device showed that specific entries related to the anabolic steroid distribution conspiracy had been deleted: specifically, all text messages between Wenger and Harris, all text messages between Wenger and the third individual he was trying to supply with steroids, the contacts for both Harris and the third individual, and recent call log entries for Wenger’s most recent phone calls with the third individual.

The jury convicted Wenger of all counts charged in this case: one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute anabolic steroids in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and (b)(1)(E)(i) and one count of destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations (obstruction of justice) in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1519.

Wenger is scheduled to appear on May 6, 2025, for a hearing on whether to remand him to custody pending sentencing. He faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison on the conspiracy to distribute anabolic steroids count and 20 years in prison on the obstruction of justice count. Any sentence will be imposed by the Court only after consideration of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and the federal statute governing the imposition of a sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3553.

The case is being prosecuted by the National Security & Special Prosecutions Section and the Oakland Branch of the United States Attorney’s Office. This prosecution is the result of an investigation by the FBI and the Office of the Contra Costa County District Attorney.

Faces Trial for Separate Charges of Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

Separately, Wenger appeared before Senior U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White on May 6, 2025, for a status conference in United States v. Wenger, 23-cr-00269, which charges Wenger with one count of conspiracy against rights in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241 and one count of deprivation of rights under color of law in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242. The United States v. Wenger, 23-cr-00269 case is set for trial on July 21, 2025.

Wenger Claims Innocence, Suing APD

When asked for a response, Wenger wrote, “Unfortunately I cannot give a full statement. This is all I can say, I am innocent. I am a whistleblower facing a whistleblower retaliation prosecution to silence me. I am being framed on fabricated and tampered evidence. Yes, the FBI and the US Attorneys on this case have fabricated and tampered with evidence, in addition to misrepresenting evidence and even lying to the court, and the public. They have been gone so far as to manipulate and suppress the documents that prove this (including exculpatory evidence) in the metadata data of their own discovery documents in order to push their false narrative. The truth will surface. That’s all I can say. 

“If you have any further questions, please contact my mom. She has all of the proof and evidence to validate my claims. 

“In addition to this we have filed a civil lawsuit against APD which outlines everything they put me through which led to these bogus charges against me.”

He shared copies of both his Motion of Acquittal and for a New Trial, and lawsuit filed filed Feb. 28, 2025, against the Antioch Police Department and former Antioch Police Lieutenant Powell Meads, who was Wenger’s superior officer. The complaint claims retaliation, discrimination, hostile workplace harassment, failure to prevent harassment, discrimination or retaliation and requests damages and a trial.

UPDATE: Wenger Offers Additional Comments, Claims He’s “Being Framed”

After reading the above information from the DOJ’s press release, Wenger offered additional comments. He replied that the article, “got a lot of it wrong in regards to the ‘crimes’ but that’s to be expected as the government is saying things that are flat out not true.

Christ is my lamp guiding me through this valley of shadows. The truth will surface and you will see it.”

“Despite what the government is falsely boasting nationwide about me I never have had anything to do with steroids. Never took them, never possessed them, and sure as heck never conspired to distribute them. I took PEPTIDES, gonadorelin to be specific. It’s legal and NOT a steroid. I took the peptides to recover from COVID, COVID almost killed me and had me in a hospital bed and left my body in shambles. I still feel the effects of it to this day and will never fully recover. The FBI even seized gonadorelin and numerous other peptides failed to disclose that.

“The case was built on a package that belonged to Daniel Harris which was intercepted and tampered with by the FBI as outlined in the motion I sent you. This package contained peptides and the FBI added steroids when they tampered with it confirmed by the weight difference when the package was originally shipped up to just prior to the seizure by the FBI and when the FBI listed different box measurements and a different weight in their report when they searched the package days after they intercepted it. Again, this is covered in the motion I sent you.

“Daniel and the ‘third party’ Brendon Mahoney were contacting each other directly, I had no knowledge what they were talking about. I assumed Brendon was purchasing the same peptide I purchased from Dan. However, I was never involved with any agreement nor any exchange of money or anything at all. I offered to pick up mahoney’s peptides since we all lived in different states and Mahoney and I would see each other at national guard drill, that’s it. The government is misrepresenting vague text messages to try and falsely claim I had steroids when I never did. I was not aware of Dan’s nor Mahoney’s conduct nor conversations. The government was aware of all of this, as I told them what I took was legal and they still misrepresented this to the court, the jury, and the people.

“My phone was illegally seized by the FBI and DAI Wallace / DAI Holcomb. It was never a ‘joint’ investigation, it was federal the whole time confirmed by internal FBI communications that they tried to hide from my lawyers and I. DAI Wallace and Holcomb were assigned to the federal agency acting as de facto federal agents, t put it simply they were acting as federal agents not, state ones. Wallace also fabricated the ‘anonymous letters’ the Pittsburg Police Department received and fabricated evidence to back legally seizing my phone.

“Additionally, FBI N-DEx (National Data Exchange) agents seized and searched my phone without any federal warrant and manipulated my phone settings and deleted many things off of my phone including signal messages since they were set to auto delete prior to my phone being forensically imaged. The federal prosecutors intentionally misrepresented this to the jury, claiming it was me and thus, they charged and convicted me with destruction of evidence. Additionally, they served the warrant at the wrong house. I had to drive to them to surrender my phone. I was complaint the whole time and even gave them an interview where I told them what I took was legal.

“Additionally, the government falsely claimed I deleted contacts and Venmo contacts from my phone, yet that is not true. These contacts and Venmo contacts remain in my phone to this day. They never left. Now, my phone was backed up to iCloud the night before the phone seizure and the government could have searched my iCloud and seen that I never deleted anything from my phone, yet they did not even though they seized everybody else’s iCloud. This is because they are pushing a false narrative.

“I encourage you to read the motion I sent you, for those who also want to read it, it’s on PACER. I forgive the prosecution, the FBI, APD, the DA’s office, and everybody involved in this. I wish them nothing but prosperity and long blessed lives with their families. I have no hate, only love. However, the truth will surface. God has a way of doing that. I encourage all involved to repent and seek Christ. Glory be to Christ as the only way to Salvation be through him. I am innocent, I am in fact being framed, and I am a whistleblower facing horrific whistleblower retaliation, but it is Christ who will carry me through this difficult time and reveal the truth.

“This isn’t even everything. The FBI and federal prosecutors manipulated the evidence in discovery as confirmation via the metadata of the discovery documents. They also are hiding exculpatory evidence under layers and layers of code so that my legal team and I are unable to access it. When they do provide evidence, it’s often under a protective order or heavily redacted so that I am unable to view it. What is happening here should shock and concern every single American. This should not be allowed, and the White House needs to be aware of what is occurring here.”

Charges Are Part of Larger FBI Investigation of Antioch, Pittsburg Police Officers

The charges against Wenger were brought as part of an investigation into the Antioch and Pittsburg police departments that resulted in multiple charges against 10 current and former officers and employees of these two police departments for various crimes ranging from the use of excessive force to fraud. The status of these cases, all of which are before Senior U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White, is below:

Case Name and Number	Statute(s)	Defendant (Bold: multiple case numbers)	Status
Fraud 23-cr-00264	18 U.S.C. §§ 1349 (Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud; 1343 (Wire Fraud)	Patrick Berhan	Sentenced to 30 months custody, 2 years supervised release concurrent with 24-cr-157 on 9/5/24
		Morteza Amiri	Convicted at trial 8/8/24, remanded to custody pending sentencing, which is set for 6/3/25
		Amanda Theodosy a/k/a Nash	Sentenced to 3 months custody, 3 years supervised release 11/15/24
		Samantha Peterson	Sentenced to time served, 3 years supervised release 4/24/24
		Ernesto Mejia-Orozco	Sentenced to 3 months custody, 3 years supervised release on 9/19/24
		Brauli Jalapa Rodriguez	Sentenced to 3 months custody, 3 years supervised release on 10/25/24
Obstruction 23-cr-00267	18 U.S.C. §§ 1519 (Destruction, Alteration, and Falsification of Records in Federal Investigations); 1512(c)(2) (Obstruction of Official Proceedings); 242 (Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law)	Timothy Manly Williams	Pleaded guilty 11/28/23, status conference 8/19/25
Anabolic Steroid Distribution 23-cr-00268	21 U.S.C. §§ 846 (Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess with Intent to Distribute Anabolic Steroids), 841(a)(1), and (b)(1)(E)(i) (Possession with Intent to Distribute Anabolic Steroids)	Daniel Harris	Pleaded guilty 9/17/24, status conference 8/19/25
	21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and (b)(1)(E)(i) (Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess with Intent to Distribute Anabolic Steroids); 18 U.S.C.§ 1519 (Destruction, Alteration, and Falsification of Records in Federal Investigations)	Devon Wenger	Convicted at trial 4/30/25, sentencing pending
Civil Rights 23-cr-00269	18 U.S.C. §§ 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights), 242 (Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law); § 1519 (Destruction, Alteration, and Falsification of Records in Federal Investigations)	Morteza Amiri	Convicted at trial 3/14/25 on counts 2 and 5, remanded to custody pending sentencing, which is set for 6/3/25
	18 U.S.C. §§ 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights), 242 (Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law)	Eric Rombough	Pleaded guilty 1/14/25, status conference 8/19/25
	18 U.S.C. §§ 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights), 242 (Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law)	Devon Wenger	Trial 7/21/25
Anabolic Steroid Distribution 24-cr-00157	21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(E)(i) (Possession with Intent to Distribute Anabolic Steroids)	Patrick Berhan	Sentenced to 30 months custody, 2 years supervised release concurrent with 23-cr-264 on 9/5/24
Bank Fraud 24-cr-00502	18 U.S.C. § 1344(1), (2) (Bank fraud)	Daniel Harris	Pleaded guilty 9/17/24, status conference 8/19/25

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

SACRAMENTO, CA — In a pivotal ruling for parental rights, U.S. District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez refused to dismiss a class-action lawsuit against California’s controversial policies requiring educators to keep parents uninformed when their children express gender confusion or request to change their names and pronouns at school. The decision, handed down on January 7, 2025, denies the motions filed by California Attorney General Rob Bonta and the California Department of Education to throw out the case by arguing that gender secrecy policies were “just a suggestion,” and not mandated on school districts. Now the suit can move forward toward potentially overturning the state’s ban parent notification policies with the passage of AB 1955 last year.

Teachers Not Required to Keep Secrets from Parents
In a powerful statement addressing the rights of educators, Judge Benitez clarified that teachers are under no obligation to follow policies that compel them to deceive or withhold information from parents. Judge Benitez emphasized that “teachers do not completely forfeit their First Amendment rights in exchange for public school employment.” He noted that while teachers may be required to deliver specific curricula, the government cannot force them to act unlawfully or infringe on parental rights. Benitez agreed with the plaintiffs that state policies compel them to act in ways that are “intentionally deceptive and unlawful,” violating the teachers’ First Amendment rights.

Upholding Parents’ Constitutional Rights
Judge Benitez also emphasized long-standing constitutional protections for parents in the upbringing and health decisions of their children. “Parents’ rights to make decisions concerning the care, custody, control, and medical care of their children is one of the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests that Americans enjoy,” he wrote, rebuking the state’s argument that parents have no fundamental right to be informed of their child’s gender identity at school. “However, under California state policy and EUSD policy, if a school student expresses words or actions during class that are visible signs that the child is dealing with gender incongruity or possibly gender dysphoria, teachers are ordered not to inform the parents.”

Ultimately, the judge denied the state’s efforts to dismiss the case, stating, “There are no controlling decisions that would compel this Court to limit or infringe parental rights, notwithstanding the State’s laudable goals of protecting children.”

The ruling directly challenges California’s “Parental Exclusion Policies,” which have allowed schools to hide critical gender identity information from families under the guise of student privacy. Judge Benitez concluded that parents have a constitutional right to know about their child’s gender incongruity, especially when such conditions could lead to significant mental health issues like depression or suicidal ideation.

Broad Implications for State Policy
The lawsuit is now free to move forward, and if successful, it could dismantle policies statewide that currently compel educators to bypass parents on sensitive matters concerning gender identity. This would represent a significant victory for parental rights advocates who argue that these policies infringe on the fundamental rights of families and erode trust between parents and schools.

Legal Counsel Speaks Out
Paul Jonna, Special Counsel for the Thomas More Society, Partner LiMandri & Jonna LLP, and a lead attorney on the case, hailed the decision as a milestone moment for parental rights. “We are incredibly pleased that the Court has denied all attempts to throw out our landmark challenge to California’s parental exclusion and gender secrecy regime,” Jonna said in a press release. “Judge Benitez’s order rightly highlights the sacrosanct importance of parents’ rights in our constitutional order and the First Amendment protections afforded to parents and teachers.”

Jonna emphasized the broader goal of achieving statewide relief for all parents and teachers affected by the secrecy policies, adding, “We look forward to continuing to prosecute this case against California Attorney General Rob Bonta and the other defendants, to put this issue to rest once and for all—by obtaining class-wide relief on behalf of all teachers and parents.”

Reaction from California Family Council
Greg Burt, Vice President of the California Family Council, praised the ruling for upholding parental rights. “This decision is a critical step toward restoring the sacred bond between parents and children,” Burt stated. “When government policies force schools to keep secrets from families, they cross a dangerous line. Judge Benitez’s ruling reaffirms that parental rights are not a secondary concern but a cornerstone of our constitutional freedoms.”

A Collision of Rights
Judge Benitez also addressed the tension between a child’s right to privacy and parents’ right to be informed. While acknowledging the competing interests, he concluded, “In a collision of rights as between parents and child, the long-recognized federal constitutional rights of parents must eclipse the state rights of the child.” This statement sets a clear precedent favoring parental oversight in matters of health and education.

Looking Ahead
As Mirabelli v. Olson proceeds, the case is likely to garner increased attention, setting the stage for a broader examination of how states balance student privacy with parental rights. The outcome could redefine policies across California and potentially influence similar debates nationwide.

About California Family Council
California Family Council works to advance God’s design for life, family, and liberty through California’s Church, Capitol, and Culture. By advocating for policies that reinforce the sanctity of life, the strength of traditional marriages, and the essential freedoms of religion, CFC is dedicated to preserving California’s moral and social foundation.

Discusses, provides direction on new city manager’s goals; provides direction to city attorney on 4 lawsuits about the previous council majority’s shutdown of the natural gas pipeline through the city, 58 claims

By Allen D. Payton

During a special Closed Session meeting on Thursday, Dec. 19, 2024, the Antioch Council met with City Manager Bessie Scott and Assistant City Attorney Kevin Kundinger to discuss a list of 28 of 36 current and 58 possible lawsuits against the City. It’s the second special meeting called by Mayor Ron Bernal in which the council and staff reviewed and discussed them. The first special, Closed Session, held on Dec. 11th, took over three hours to discuss eight other lawsuits. Some are about alleged violations of police use of force, while five are about the previous council majority’s vote to not renew the franchise agreement for the natural gas pipeline running through the city. (See related articles here and here) The lawsuit by the Antioch Police Officers Association (APOA) is to obtain phone records of former Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe according to the APOA’s attorney, Mike Rains.

After the meeting, Mayor Pro Tem and District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha said, “We’re getting educated on the lawsuits to understand what each are about. We’ve reviewed about half of them, so far.”

The first item on the Closed Session agenda was listed as “Public Employee Performance Evaluation: City Manager” but it was actually the opportunity for the new council to offer direction to Scott and provide her the goals that they want her to work on over the next four months. They will be the basis for her six-month evaluation in compliance with Scott’s contract.

The meeting began at 6:00 p.m., the council adjourned to Closed Session at 6:10 p.m. and almost four hours later, they returned to open session at 9:52 p.m. Although it’s not a requirement for special meeting agendas, Bernal included a Public Comments section prior to the council adjourning to Closed Session during which only two residents spoke. The first was former Councilman Ralph Hernandez who complained that there was “no packet at all…at the library”. (This news organization also did not receive an email about the meeting as usually occurs, and this reporter learned about the meeting the following day).

Hernandez also said “there’s a lot of litigation. I see a part of the problem that the City has. You’re supposed to have an administrative…inquiry and on many of those you have not had that.” He encouraged the council ensure that’s done so they’ll know what the complaints are against City employees.

The other speaker was Melissa Case asking that the council be fair and work collaboratively with the city manager in setting “realistic and attainable” goals for her. “I’m concerned she has a lack of staff, no assistant and there’s a lot to do in Antioch.”

“I think it’s crucial we set her up for success,” she continued. “Because her success is Antioch’s success.”

Case later said she meant an assistant city manager as Scott does have an executive assistant.

Slight Procedural Controversy

The only controversial matter occurred prior to adjourning to Closed Session when District 3 Councilman Don Freitas interrupted Kundinger, as he began to read the list of lawsuits, asking why he was doing so. The assistant city attorney responded, “It is considered, that is the position to make sure the record is clear.”

Freitas then said, “It’s a public record. It’s a public document. To me, this is just a waste of time.”

Kundinger responded, “If the council would like to make a motion to abbreviate the reading of that, I believe that would be amenable.”

“I think under Robert’s Rules the mayor has that power,” Freitas stated.

“To make a motion?” Bernal asked.

“No. To say it’s a public document and that’s it,” the newly-elected councilman and former mayor responded. “You don’t need a motion.”

Bernal than said, “I would like the assistant city attorney to go ahead and continue reading down the list, please. Please abbreviate it.”

But before the mayor finished speaking and after letting out a sigh, Freitas said, “Then I would like,” as he struck his forefinger on the dais, “Point of order I would like the city attorney also to look at Robert’s Rules and advise us on that matter, in writing.”

“Very well,” Bernal responded and to Kundinger he said, “If you could please proceed” which he did and finished reading the list of lawsuits taking another two minutes.

During Thursday’s meeting, the council also discussed the goals for the new city manager, which was required to be done during her first 30 days on the job which Scott began on Oct. 7th. As previously reported, Freitas pointed that out during his remarks following the oath of office ceremony at the Dec. 10th council meeting.

Municipal Pooling Authority of Northern California (MPA) is the City’s insurance provider. According to the organization’s website, MPA is a Joint Powers Authority provides and administers lines of coverage for liability, workers’ compensation and property for 13 member cities in Contra Costa County, including Antioch. If a council votes to settle a case or a plaintiff wins in court, the City must pay a deductible. That has usually been $25,000 per case.

Under Item 2, the 28 of the 36 current lawsuits listed on the meeting agenda included the following:

Agenda Item

2-1) Trent Allen, et al. v. City of Antioch, et al., United States District Court Northern District of California, (Case No. 3:23-cv-01895-TSH). The lawsuit was filed in 2023 by attorneys for Allen, Shagoofa Khan and four other plaintiffs, names six Antioch cops, three police chiefs and the City and seeks monetary damages, department practice and policy changes, court monitoring and labels officers’ actions a “conspiracy”. Allen is one of four suspects convicted in May 2024 for murder and attempted murder during a drive-by shooting in Antioch on March 9, 2021. (See related articles here, here and here)

2-2) Claudjanae Young v. City of Antioch, et al., United States District Court Northern District of California, (Case No.3:23-cv-02691-SI). Filed May 31, 2023, the lawsuit lists former Officer Devon Wenger, current Officer Erik Nilsen and the City. According to an NBC Bay Area new report, Young claims during an October 2019 incident she was “not only falsely arrested, but Wenger broke her arm in the process.” He “claims Young matched the description of a group of individuals accused of shoplifting at a nearby Spirit Halloween Store…Wenger’s partner on the scene, Officer Erik Nilsen, who is also being sued in the lawsuit, told Young she was being detained and not free to walk away. When Young tried to run inside the home, Wenger grabbed Young to arrest her. He claims she resisted, and confirmed her arm did break during the incident.”

2-3) Joel Tolbert III v. Antioch Police Department, et al., United States District Court Northern District of California, (Case No.3:22-cv-02026-JSC).

2-4) Antioch Police Officers Association v. City of Antioch, Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. N23-1629).

2-5) King David Levon Donahue v. Antich Police Department, et al., United States District Court, Northern District, Case No. C23-05564 AGT.

2-6) Ramello Randle v. Antioch Police Department, et al., United States District Court, Northern District, Case No. 3:23-cv-05800-JSC.

2-7) Lamar Young v. Sgt. Stenger, et al., United States District Court Northern District of California, (Case No. 21-cv-08131-DMR).

2-8) Ashika Kanji v. City of Antioch, Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C24-00795).

2-9) Mary Reed v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C24-01367).

2-10) Jordan Davis v. County of Contra Costa, et al., United States District Court Northern District of California, (Case No.4:21-cv-04651).

2-11) O.Y. a Decedent, et al., v. Contra Costa County, et al., United States District Court Northern District of California, (Case No. 3:24-cv-05154-PHK).

2-12) Nicholas Shipilov v. City of Antioch, Kwame Reed, Ana Cortez, et. al, Contra Costa County, Case No. N24-1095.

2-13) Christopher Martinez v. City of Antioch, Antioch Police Department, et al., Contra Costa County Superior Court, Case No. C24-03123.

2-14) Javier Elias Aguilar v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No.C23-00410).

2-15) Jessie Wilson and Dajon Smith v. City of Antioch, et al., United States District Court Northern District of California, (Case No. 4:24-cv-02758-JSW).

2-16) Reagan DeGuzman v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No.C23-00666).

2-17) Nicholas Roark v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No.C23-00410).

2-18) Jason Allard; Jamie Tellez v. City of Antioch; Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. MSC21-00171).

2-19) Nicholas Warner v. County of Contra Costa, City of Antioch, Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C23-02689).

2-20) Susan Shintaku v. City of Antioch, Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, Case No. C24-00356.

2-21) Nirivana Allen v. City of Antioch, Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No.C22-02401).

2-22) Pat Stack, et al., v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C24-01065).

2-23) Jayson Robinson v. Antioch Unified School District, Antioch Water Park, City of Antioch, Contra Costa Superior Court, (Case No.C20-02420).

2-24) Annette Bullock, et al. v. City of Antioch, Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No.C19-01331

2-25) California Resources Production Corporation v. City of Antioch, Before the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, A.23-07-008.

2-26) California Resources Production Corporation v. City of Antioch, Antioch City Council, Court of Appeal, State of California, First Appellate District, Division Four, A168517, A168558.

2-27) Delta Gas Gathering, Inc., et al. v. City of Antioch, et al., Contra Costa County, Superior Court Case No. MSN21-2355.

2-28) Enerfin Resources Northwest Limited Partnership v. City of Antioch, et al., Contra Costa County Superior, Court Case No. MSN21-2356.

In addition, the agenda included a Conference with Legal Counsel of Anticipated Litigation for the discussion of 58 claims against the City, later referred to as Item 3.

Reports from Closed Session

After returning from Closed Session with District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker absent, Assistant City Attorney Kundinger reported out saying under Item 1, “direction was given to the city manager” and “for Items 2-25 through 2-28 direction was given to the city attorney. For all other items underneath Item 2 there was no reportable action and for…Item 3 direction was given to the city attorney’s office.”

Eight Additional Lawsuits Discussed During Dec. 11th Special Meeting Agenda

Previously, on the Dec. 11th special Closed Session meeting agenda, eight other lawsuits were included:

Jayson Robinson v. Antioch Unified School District, Antioch Water Park, City of Antioch, Contra Costa Superior Court, (Case No.C20-02420).

Kathryn Wade v. City of Antioch, et al., United States District Court Northern District of California, (Case No. 4:23-cv-01130-DMR).

Juan Laspada, et al., v. City of Antioch, et al., United States District Court Northern District of California, (Case No.4:23-cv-01955-KAW).

Terry Robinson v. City of Antioch, Matthew Nutt, United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case 4:24-cv-03974-KAW.

Javier Elias Aguilar v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No.C23-00410).

Jarrod Garner v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C23-01669).

Breanna Butson v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C22-00161).

Edward Burkhalter v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C22-02663).

California Resources Production Corporation v. City of Antioch, Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. N23-0843).

According to the annotated agenda for that meeting which began at 8:16 p.m. and adjourned to Closed Session at 8:21 p.m., District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson left at 9:45 p.m. during the Closed Session and Torres-Walker left at 10:38 p.m. after it was finished, but before the council returned to open session at 10:41 p.m. City Attorney Thomas L. Smith announced there was no reportable action.

Before deciding to settle any of the cases against the police department, the council and staff have the opportunity to review body cam video footage of the related incidents.

To watch the council meeting video, click, here: www.antiochca.gov/government/city-council-meetings/12-19-24/. To read the Special Meeting agenda click, here: 121924.pdf.

Hosts first of a series of regional convenings with immigrant rights groups, elected officials, and others ahead of Inauguration Day 

LOS ANGELES – California Attorney General Rob Bonta on Tuesday, Dec. 17, 2024, issued two guidances to help California immigrants better understand their rights and protections under the law and avoid immigration scams by those seeking to take advantage of fear and uncertainty resulting from the President-elect’s inhumane threats of mass detention, arrests, and deportation. The guidances build on the Attorney General’s announcement earlier this month of updated model policies and recommendations to help public institutions like schools, hospitals, and courts comply with California law limiting state and local participation in immigration enforcement activities. Over the coming weeks, Attorney General Bonta will continue to help Californians prepare for changes to federal immigration policy in convenings with immigrant rights groups, elected officials, and others in Los Angeles, Sacramento, Salinas, San Francisco, and San Diego, where the Attorney General and California Department of Justice (CADOJ) staff will share resources, hear concerns, and discuss ongoing efforts to protect California’s immigrant communities.  

“In California, we know that our immigrants are the backbone of our communities, a driving force behind our economy, and an essential part of our history as a state,” said Bonta. “With the President-elect making clear his intent to move forward an inhumane and destructive immigration agenda once he takes office, CADOJ is releasing new and updated guidance to help immigrants understand their rights under the law. In California, we will ensure that the rights of our immigrant communities are respected and protected. I will be convening a series of discussions in the weeks ahead – the first here today in Los Angeles – focused on this essential mission.”

Know Your Immigration Rights and Protections Under the Law 

• You have the right to apply for and secure housing without sharing your immigration status. California law prohibits housing providers from asking about your immigration status unless you are applying for affordable housing funded by the federal government. Additionally, housing providers cannot harass or intimidate you by threatening or sharing information about your immigration status to ICE, law enforcement, or other government agencies.
• You have the right to access emergency medical care. Federal laws and regulations ensure the rights of all people to access emergency medical care, including undocumented immigrants.
• You have the right to an attorney. If you are arrested by police, you have the right to a government-appointed attorney. If you are detained by ICE and/or are facing immigration proceedings, you have the right to seek legal assistance through an attorney. 
• State and local law enforcement cannot ask for your immigration status. California law expressly prohibits law enforcement from inquiring about a person’s immigration status for immigration enforcement purposes. 
• State and local law enforcement cannot share your personal information. This includes sharing your home or work address for immigration purposes, unless that information is available to the public or unless that information involves previous criminal arrest, convictions or similar criminal history.
• State and local law enforcement cannot assist ICE with immigration enforcement, with very limited exceptions. This means they cannot investigate, cannot interrogate, cannot arrest, and cannot detain you unless it is as part of joint federal task force where the primary purpose is not immigration enforcement.

The full “Know Your Immigration Rights” consumer alert is available in English, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, Tagalog, and Vietnamese at oag.ca.gov/immigrant/resources.

Protect Yourself from Immigration Scams

If you need help applying for immigration relief, be careful who you hire. Watch out for immigration scams that can cost you thousands of dollars and/or harm your immigration status! Here are some tips and resources to help: 

• Go to a legitimate legal aid organization for free legal help. Many nonprofit organizations provide free immigration help to low-income individuals, such as those found through the resources below. To find a legal aid organization near you, go to lawhelpca.org. 
• Keep your original documents in a safe place. Don’t give your original documents to anyone unless you see proof that the government requires the original document. If you give someone an original, they may lose it or refuse to return it unless you pay them.
• Do not hire an immigration consultant or a notary. Only lawyers, accredited representatives, and recognized organizations can give you legal advice or represent you in immigration court. Immigration consultants – who may call themselves immigration experts, notarios, notaries public, or paralegals – cannot do so.
• Do not give money or personal information to anyone who calls, texts, or emails you claiming that there is a problem with your immigration matter. No federal or state agency, including USCIS, will ever ask for your personal information or payment over the phone, by email, or text.

For more dos and don’ts, see the full “Immigration Services Fraud” consumer alert available in English, Spanish, Chinese (Simplified), Korean, Tagalog, and Vietnamese at oag.ca.gov/immigrant/resources.

Access Free and Low-Cost Legal Assistance 

Visit Law Help CA or Immigration Law Help to find immigration assistance near you.

File a Complaint  

If you believe your rights have been violated, report it to the California Department of Justice at oag.ca.gov/report. 

If you believe you were subject to discrimination, harassment or retaliation, report it to the California Civil Rights Department at calcivilrights.ca.gov/complaintprocess/.

Including hiring search firm for police chief recruitment, giving authority to Planning Commission to approve tentative maps, commission appointments

Also, Climate Action and Resilience Plan, lawsuit by Antioch Police Officers Association

By Allen D. Payton

Just two weeks before a new council majority is seated, with Antioch’s new mayor and two members to be sworn in, defeated Mayor Lamar Hernández-Thorpe has placed a variety of major issues on the agenda for the current council to decide during their “lame duck” meeting on Tuesday, Nov. 26, 2024. A lame duck government meeting occurs whenever an elected board meets after its successors are elected.

Prior to the regular session at 7:00 p.m., the council will hold a Closed Session beginning at 6:00 p.m. to discuss a significant exposure to anticipated litigation and two lawsuits, one by the mother of a man who died following interactions with police and one by the Antioch Police Officers Association.

The one issue that is the responsibility of the current council is their response to the scathing report from the Civil Grand Jury, from earlier this year. But the other major issues the current mayor has placed on the agenda include hiring a search firm for recruiting a permanent police chief, giving authority to the Planning Commission to approve tentative maps, appointments of two members to the Planning Commission, one to the Parks and Recreation Commission and two to the Police Oversight Commission, all of which could be left to the new mayor and council majority to decide.

The council will also consider giving a city-owned parcel on E. 18th Street to Con Fire for a new station, directing city staff to discuss with the county the use of a 4.7-acre city-owned lot on Delta Fair Blvd. for homeless shelter, and adopting a Climate Action and Resilience Plan.

The council will also consider under item #15 potential upgrades to the Antioch Amtrak Station to help keep it from being closed or decommissioned in the next two to three years as is the current approved plan of the San Joaquins Joint Powers Authority which oversees the Amtrak service in and through Antioch. Finally, under item #15, the council will consider allocating $60,000 for a Chinese Commemoration Public Art Project in the area of Rivertown which was the City’s Chinatown in the 1800’s.

Response to Grand Jury Report

Under agenda item #1, carried over twice from previous meetings, the council will consider, “Approving an addendum to specific Findings and Recommendations identified in the Grand Jury Noncompliance letters dated October 3, 2024 in response to the Findings and Recommendations resulting from the 2023-2024 Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury report of June 12, 2024 entitled: “Challenges Facing the City of Antioch” Addendum; and 2) Authorizing the Mayor to sign and submit it to the Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury.”

Hiring Search Firm for Police Chief Recruitment

Under the Consent Calendar item #6L, the council will consider hiring executive search firm Bob Hall & Associates to recruit a permanent police chief. According to the city staff report, in September, the City issued a Request for Qualifications to attract qualified recruitment firms capable of conducting a nationwide search. The Human Resources Department contacted 29 firms and of those contacted, seven firms submitted applications.

On Oct. 31st, City staff and a representative from the Antioch Police Oversight Commission evaluated and ranked the applications based on the firms’ experience, proposed recruitment strategies, cost effectiveness, commitment to diversity and ability to meet the City’s timeline and goals. Two firms were identified as the closest matches to the criteria and were interviewed, during which they outlined “their strategies and processes for engaging the community and fostering trust between the Police Department and community members.” Bob Hall & Associates was ranked the highest and selected.

The Huntington Beach-based firm’s most recent police chief recruitment effort was in the City of Vallejo. According to the company’s LinkedIn profile, it’s founder and namesake, Bob Hall, passed away “on July 12, 2024, after a 5-month battle with cancer.”

UPDATE: Interim Chief Brian Addington said he was part of the decision-making process in selecting the firm and that it was Commission Chairperson Porsche Taylor as the member who participated, as well. He said he feels very confident in the search firm and that both finalists had the needed experience.

In addition, Rachel Hall, the firm’s Recruitment Manager, shared, “Bob Hall & Associates was founded in 2019 and we will be dedicating a specialized team to the Antioch Police Chief recruitment.”

Allowing Planning Commission Approval of Tentative Maps

According to the city staff report for agenda item #7, “In order to streamline Antioch’s development review process and make it more consistent with neighboring jurisdictions and the goals of the Housing Element, this proposed ordinance (“Ordinance”) amends AMC (Antioch Municipal Code) Title 9, Chapter 4, Articles 1 and 3 to assign the Planning Commission the sole authority to approve Tentative Maps as the Advisory Agency in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act, while designating the City Council to act as the Appeals Board for Tentative Map decisions and to continue approving Final Maps.”

Meeting Information

The regular meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 200 H Street in historic, downtown Rivertown. The meeting can also be seen via livestream on the City’s website or viewed on either Comcast local cable channel 24 or AT&T U-verse channel 99. See the complete agenda packet.

See separate article about the City’s Climate Action and Resilience Plan. An effort to reach Mike Rains, the attorney for the Antioch Police Officers Association for more details about their lawsuit was also unsuccessful prior to publication time.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

Dear Editor: 

It typically takes over a month for the Contra Costa Superior Court to process filings in limited civil cases. In fact, more like 6 weeks. 

This compares badly with other superior courts throughout the state.

In San Diego Superior, for example, I’ve had papers processed within hours. In Marin County Superior Court, I’ve had papers processed within 1 or 2 days. 

This is a real problem because justice delayed is justice denied. 

This is a ridiculously long time when it only takes a few minutes to do the processing.

Yes, I understand that they have a lot of filings to process…but with a lot of filing don’t they also have a lot of taxpayer funding commensurate with the size of the population of the county? 

So why is Contra Costa so much slower than other counties? 

Sincerely,

Edward Teyssier, esq.

National City