By Yating Campbell, Commission on the Status of Women and Girls
(SACRAMENTO, CA) – The Commission on the Status of Women and Girls (CCSWG)’s co-sponsored legislation, SB 642 (Limόn) Pay Equity Enforcement Act, has been signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom. CCSWG co-sponsored SB 642 along with the California Employment Lawyers Association and Equal Rights Advocates.
“SB 642 signifies an important victory in advancing gender equity in the workplace on the 10-year anniversary of the California Fair Pay Act, while also recognizing that there is still much to be done to achieve true progress,” said Chair of CCSWG Dr. Rita Gallardo Good. “We thank Governor Newsom and Commissioner Limόn for their leadership and continued commitment to California’s women and girls.”
SB 642 revises outdated gender binary language, allows workers to recover for up to six years of lost pay, harmonizes the statute of limitations with other wage and anti-discrimination statutes, and limits how wide pay ranges may be in public job postings
“With many families continuing to stretch to make ends meet, we reinforce our commitment to equal pay laws that strengthen the economic security of California families and communities,” said Senator Monique Limón. “On Latina Equal Pay Day, I am incredibly proud that Governor Newsom is building upon our pay equity legacy here in California. The Pay Equity Enforcement Act will help narrow the wage gap by providing workers with more negotiation power at the start of their career, while also strengthening workers’ rights to recover lost wages – this is a win for workers and an even bigger win for California families.”
“As a proud co-sponsor of SB 642, we thank Governor Newsom for his signature of SB 642, which will advance pay and gender equity in the state of California for millions of women and girls,” said CCSWG Executive Director Darcy Totten, “SB 642 addresses several critical pay transparency gaps and revising references to gender to be more inclusive and reflective of California’s values. We also thank the author, Senator and Commissioner Limón, for her relentless support of women’s rights and protections in the workplace.”
Research demonstrates that women continue to make 79 cents for every dollar made by their male counterparts. Women of color are shown to be even more severely and disproportionately impacted. Studies also show that, on average, women nationwide lose a combined total of almost $1.7 trillion every year due to the wage gap, impacting the ability to afford basic needs like housing, food, childcare, and preventing women from building long-term financial security. SB 642 remedies these obstacles by enabling women to build long-term economic security and wealth. The provisions of the bill will go into effect January 1, 2026.
“The gender wage gap costs California women billions in lost wages each year—money that could otherwise go toward rent, groceries, childcare, and other essentials that families depend on,” said Jessica Ramey Stender, Policy Director & Deputy Legal Director of Equal Rights Advocates. “SB 642 ensures California remains at the forefront of advancing pay equity. Ensuring women and all workers are paid fairly is not only critical for their financial stability, but also for the economic security and well-being of families across the state.”
“One of the biggest barriers to advancing pay equity is that workers often don’t know that they are being paid unfairly until it is too late,” said Mariko Yoshihara, Policy Director for the California Employment Lawyers Association. “We applaud Governor Newsom for signing SB 642, which will comprehensively strengthen our equal pay laws and extend the ability to recover lost wages due to pay discrimination.”
For more than 50 years, the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls has identified and worked to eliminate inequities in state laws, practices, and conditions that affect California’s women and girls. Established as a state agency with 17 appointed commissioners in 1965, the Commission regularly assesses gender equity in health, safety, employment, education, and equal representation in the military, and the media. The Commission provides leadership through research, policy and program development, education, outreach and collaboration, advocacy, and strategic partnerships. Learn more at www.women.ca.gov.
SB771 attempts to curb online “hate speech”, awaits Newsom’s decision by Oct. 12; second effort in two years to limit online speech, first one failed
Computer & Communications Industry Association warns California bill “could undermine free speech online”
“It effectively incentivizes broad suppression of speech through the threat of legal action.” – TechNet
“sets stage for…fight” and “could create a messy, drawn-out legal battle” – Washington Examiner
CalChamber also opposes
By Allen D. Payton
SB 771, by State Senator Henry Stern, entitled “Personal rights: liability: social media platforms” has passed both the State Assembly and Senate and currently awaits the governor’s decision as of September 22, 2025, would allow fines of up to $1 million per violation for social media companies that generate more than $100 million in annual gross revenues, whose algorithms amplify content violating California’s civil rights and anti-discrimination laws. (Source: compliancehub.wiki)
The platforms could also face fines of up to three months of the platform’s gross revenue preceding the judgment for intentional violations, or up to $500,000 per violation for reckless violations, which is designed to address platforms that show disregard for potential harm without specific intent.
Newsom has until Oct. 12, 2025, to either sign or veto the bill. If he signed, bill would become operative on January 1, 2027, giving social media platforms time to prepare.
According to the Legislative Counsel’s Digest, “Existing law generally regulates social media platforms, including by requiring a social media company to post terms of service for each social media platform owned or operated by the company in a manner reasonably designed to inform all users of the social media platform of the existence and contents of the terms of service, as prescribed.
Existing law generally prohibits a person from using violence or intimidation to interfere with another person’s enjoyment of certain rights or because of certain attributes of that person, including the person’s political affiliation, race, or sexual orientation, and punishes violations of that law with certain civil penalties or as misdemeanors, as prescribed.
This bill would make a social media platform, as defined, that violates the above-referenced provisions of law relating to personal rights through its algorithms that relay content to users or aids, abets, acts in concert, or conspires in violation of those laws, or is a joint tortfeasor in an action alleging a violation of those laws, liable for specified civil penalties. The bill would declare its provisions to be severable and would declare attempted waiver of its provisions to be void and unenforceable.”
The bill specifically references violations of:
Penal Code Sections 31 and 422.6 (hate crimes and interference with civil rights)
Civil Code Section 51.7 (Ralph Civil Rights Act)
Civil Code Section 51.9 (Civil rights protections against violence or intimidation)
Civil Code Section 52 and 52.1 (Tom Bane Civil Rights Act)
According to a report by Reason.com, “The Legislature says the bill is needed because of a rise in documented hate crimes. It cites a report by the Human Rights Campaign that found “anti-LGBTQ+ disinformation and harmful rhetoric” increased by 400 percent following the passage of Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill in 2022, as well as a report by the Los Angeles County Commission on Human Relations that found that “hate crimes involving anti-immigrant slurs increased by 31 percent” in FY 2024, the highest number since tracking began in 2007.
“The bill additionally cites the Anti-Defamation League’s 2024 Audit of Antisemitic Incidents, which found an 893 percent increase in antisemitic incidents over the previous 10 years, and a 2023 study by nonprofit Global Witness, which found that paid advertisements promoting violence toward women were placed and distributed across social media platforms.”
However, the report continues, “the bill is sure to face scrutiny under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which largely protects platforms from being held liable for user speech.”
Sets State for Free Speech Fight
According to a Washington Examiner report, the bill “sets stage for free speech fight” and “could create a messy, drawn-out legal battle with multibillion-dollar tech companies over what people can post on their platforms.”
CCIA Warns California SB 771 Could Undermine Free Speech Online
The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), whose members include Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Messenger and Threads; Google and Apple, is opposed to the bill. It testified in July “before the California Assembly Judiciary Committee…reiterating its opposition to SB 771. The association warns that the proposal could limit access to lawful content, discourage open dialogue online, and conflict with key constitutional and federal legal protections.
SB 771 would allow lawsuits against large social media platforms if their recommendation systems are accused of amplifying unlawful content targeting protected groups. But the bill’s broad language and legal uncertainty could force platforms to take down more content than necessary — not because it’s harmful, but to avoid the risk of litigation.
CCIA believes this approach would reduce the availability of protected speech and place platforms in a legally precarious position. The bill also raises serious concerns about First Amendment protections and may conflict with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields online services from liability for content moderation carried out in good faith.
“We all want to create safer online spaces and are concerned that SB 771 takes the wrong approach,” said Aodhan Downey, State Policy Manager for CCIA. “The bill creates vague legal standards that could prompt platforms to over-remove content out of fear of lawsuits. That would limit access to important conversations and weaken free expression online. California lawmakers should reject this bill and pursue targeted, effective solutions that protect users while respecting constitutional rights.”
According to the company’s website, CCIA is an international, not-for-profit trade association representing a broad cross section of communications and technology firms. For more than 50 years, CCIA has promoted open markets, open systems, and open networks. CCIA members employ more than 1.6 million workers, invest more than $100 billion in research and development, and contribute trillions of dollars in productivity to the global economy.
TechNet, CalChamber Oppose SB771
In a July 10, 2025, letter to Assemblywoman Buffy Wicks, Chair of the Assembly Appropriations Committee, and who represents portions of Western Contra Costa County, TechNet, whose members include Comcast NBC Universal, Google and Meta, was joined by CCIA and the California Chamber of Commerce in writing, “TechNet and the following organizations must respectfully oppose SB 771, as it raises significant concerns about potential conflicts with longstanding internet law by exposing social media platforms to substantial liability, calculated in the billions, for user-generated content.
TechNet is the national, bipartisan network of technology CEOs and senior executives that promotes the growth of the innovation economy by advocating a targeted policy agenda at the federal and 50-state level. TechNet’s diverse membership includes dynamic American businesses ranging from startups to the most iconic companies on the planet and represents over 4.5 million employees and countless customers in the fields of information technology, artificial intelligence, e commerce, the sharing and gig economies, advanced energy, transportation, cybersecurity, venture capital, and finance.
Although SB 771 does not explicitly mandate content removal, it effectively incentivizes broad suppression of speech through the threat of legal action. In practice, the elevated liability risk could compel platforms to take down content based solely on unsubstantiated allegations of violence. This dynamic sets the stage for a heckler’s veto, in which bad actors or politically motivated users can flag content they disagree with, knowing the platform may err on the side of removal to avoid potential lawsuits.
This bill’s implicit concern is harmful content. It is impossible for companies to identify and remove every potentially harmful piece of content because there’s no clear consensus on what exactly constitutes harmful content, apart from clearly illicit content. Determining what is harmful is highly subjective and varies from person to person, making it impossible to make such judgments on behalf of millions of users. Faced with this impossible task and the liability imposed by this bill, some platforms may decide to aggressively over restrict content that could be considered harmful.
Furthermore, platforms would need to evaluate whether to eliminate their fundamental features and functions, which are the reasons users go to their platforms, due to the legal risk involved. For instance, direct messaging features could potentially be misused for contacting and bullying other teens; such features would likely be removed.
Serious First Amendment concerns.
It is well established that the companies covered by this legislation have constitutional rights related to content moderation, including the right to curate, prioritize, and remove content in accordance with their terms of service. By exposing these companies to civil liability for content they do not remove, SB 771 creates a chilling effect on their editorial discretion. The significant, prescribed civil penalties – potentially amounting into the billions for each violation – would lead platforms to over-remove lawful content to mitigate legal exposure. Therefore, if this law passes, it will almost certainly be struck down in court (see NetChoice v Paxton) because it imposes liability on social media platforms for whether certain types of third-party content are shown to users, as well as the expressive choices social media platforms make in designing the user experience. This violates the First Amendment rights of users and social media platforms.
Moreover, the proposed liability framework likely conflicts with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides strong federal protections for platforms against civil liability for third-party content and for good-faith content moderation. Courts (see Twitter,inc V. Taamneh, 598 U.S.__ (2023)) have consistently upheld Section 230 as preempting state-level attempts to impose liability for content hosting or moderation decisions.
For these reasons, we respectfully oppose SB 771. If you have any questions regarding our position, please contact Robert Boykin at rboykin@technet.org or 408.898.7145.”
The letter was signed by Robert Boykin, Executive Director for California and the Southwest TechNet, Ronak Daylami attorney and Policy Advocate with the California Chamber of Commerce and Aodhan Downey of the CCIA.
Second Legislative Attempt to Limit Online Speech, First Failed in Court
This is the second attempt by the California legislature and Newsom to limit online speech in the last two years. Last year, AB2839 and AB2655 were signed into law, banning deceptive elections-related media, known as “deep-fakes”, in advertisements including those containing parody.
AB2839 would have “prohibited a person, committee, or other entity from knowingly distributing an advertisement or other election communication, as defined, that contains certain materially deceptive content, as defined, with malice, as defined, subject to specified exemptions. The bill would apply this prohibition within 120 days of an election in California and, in specified cases, 60 days after an election.”
AB2655 would have required “a large online platform, as defined, to block the posting of materially deceptive content related to elections in California, during specified periods before and after an election…and to label certain additional content inauthentic, fake, or false.”
However, parody website, The Babylon Bee sued the state and according to the Alliance Defending Freedom which represented the media outlet, “California officials agreed they cannot enforce one of those laws (AB2839) against The Babylon Bee and Kelly Chang Rickert, a California attorney and blogger, after a federal district court ruled that the law likely violates the First Amendment.”
Contact Governor Newsom
To contact the governor’s office to offer your opinion on the legislation, use the website form at www.gov.ca.gov/contact and select Legislation Issues/Concerns in the drop down menu, mail Governor Gavin Newsom at 1021 O Street, Suite 9000 Sacramento, CA 95814 or call (916) 445-2841.
SACRAMENTO, CA — In a stirring and impassioned announcement before his congregation last week, Pastor Jack Hibbs of Calvary Chapel Chino Hills (a congregation of over 10,000) issued an urgent call to action for Californians: mark your calendars and make your way to Sacramento on Tuesday, August 19th for a rally and lobby day opposing Assembly Bill 495, a bill critics say obliterates parental rights and creates legal loopholes making child kidnapping easy.
“I have to tell you, if this bill passes, I am going to ask you to leave the state of California,” Pastor Hibbs declared from the pulpit. “You got to get out. You got to run with your kids. You got to go.”
The bill is the first piece of legislation authored by newly elected Assemblywoman Celeste Rodriguez (D–San Fernando). She sold AB 495 as a “compassionate” solution for children of detained immigrant parents. But opponents warn the measure does far more, and far worse, than what its title suggests.
The Threat of AB 495: A Legal Loophole for Kidnapping?
The “Family Preparedness Plan Act of 2025” would allow unrelated adults, broadly defined as an “adult caregiver” with a “mentoring relationship with the child” to assume custody-like control over a child through a one-page Caregiver’s Authorization Affidavit. No court appearance. No notarization. No parental consent or notification. No background check. No verification of identity required.
“Presto, someone walks away with your child,” warned attorney and president of Our Duty-USA Erin Friday, who called AB 495 “a child trafficker’s and kidnapper’s dream bill.”
“California wants to let someone that is not related to your child remove her from school, enroll her in any other school in the state, authorize any medical treatment of her, including mental health services and drugs, without the parents’ notice and knowledge or consent. This is not fear-mongering. I’m not being hyperbolic,” she said. “These unintended consequences are terrifying, and they are unavoidable.”
Even medical decisions, including psychiatric drug prescriptions and sex-trait modification procedures, could be authorized by these unvetted adults without the knowledge or consent of the child’s parents.
August 19th Rally: Mobilizing for Parental Rights
Real Impact and Capitol Resource Institute have pulled together a coalition of parental rights advocates, legal experts, pastors, and concerned citizens, to hold the “NO on AB 495 Rally and Lobby Day” featuring Pastor Hibbs as keynote speaker. Other speakers include best-selling author and speaker Heidi St. John and Jonathan Keller, President of California Family Council, with more speakers to be announced soon.
“I’m going to ask all of you to drive, bus, fly, I don’t care how you get there,” Hibbs told his church. “We’re looking for a minimum of 5000 people to be there that day.”
Schedule – Tuesday, August 19, 2025
1:00 PM PT – Rally Begins (West Steps of Capitol, 1315 10th Street, Sacramento)
2:00 PM PT – Lobby Training
2:30 PM PT – Legislative Office Visits
This isn’t the first time Hibbs has rallied thousands to the Capitol. A previous event back in 2022 drew nearly 2000 people to the Capitol to protest a bill to legalize infanticide. Organizers hope to top that turnout this time.
A State in Crisis
Hibbs’ warning is dire, and he isn’t mincing words. “I would not subject my child to one second in this public school system with this new law, AB 495,” he thundered.
California Family Council agrees the bill is incredibly dangerous. “AB 495 is a grave threat to the God-given responsibility of parents to raise and protect their children,” said Greg Burt, CFC’s Vice President. “It undermines every safeguard we have in place for child welfare and does so in the name of compassion. But compassion without guardrails is not mercy, it is madness.”
A Biblical Call to Courage
Pastor Hibbs was clear: this is a line in the sand.
“If you have kids in the state of California and this passes, you gotta go,” he said. “Your child’s safety is number one in your life, and I don’t care if you like the weather, and I never thought that day would ever come when I would encourage you to leave.
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.
SACRAMENTO, CA — The California legislature continues to disregard the rights of parents and ignore their religious beliefs regarding their children with the introduction of AB 1084, a bill that expedites the process for changing a person’s name and sex on official documents—including birth certificates and marriage licenses—based on “gender identity” rather than biological reality.
While author Assemblyman Rick Zbur (D-Beverly Hills) says the bill is a necessary response to efforts making it “harder for transgender people to live safely and openly as their authentic selves,” it is in fact a profound assault on both truth and parental rights. AB 1084 is not just another procedural update. “Not only does it further legitimize the false idea that sex is a choice,” said Greg Burt, Vice President of the California Family Council. “But it’s designed to sideline the very people God has charged with the care and guidance of children: their parents.”
Biological Reality Can’t Be Legislated Away
A person cannot change their sex. Sex is not “assigned at birth”—it is observed and recorded. It is an immutable, biological reality encoded in every cell of our bodies. It is not up for revision with a court order or a fill-in-the-blank on a government form.
But AB 1084 expedites this legal fiction, compelling courts to issue approval for name and sex changes to reflect not biological sex, but subjective gender identity within two weeks.
The Real Target: Parental Authority
While the entire premise of the bill is flawed, its most egregious offense is against parents.
AB 1084 claims to honor parental rights by requiring both living parents to approve a minor’s request to change their name and sex on legal documents. But this is a bait and switch. If one parent objects, the court will only consider the objection valid if it demonstrates “good cause.” And what is explicitly not good cause? Belief in biological sex.
You read that right. Under AB 1084, a court must disregard a parent’s objection if it is based on the belief that their child’s proposed gender identity does not align with their biological sex. In other words, if you believe—scientifically, morally, or religiously—that sex is binary and unchangeable, your views are disqualified from legal consideration. Here is how the text of the bill explains it: “(D) A hearing date shall not be set in the proceeding unless an objection is timely filed and shows good cause for opposing the name change. Objections based solely on concerns that the proposed change is not the petitioner’s actual gender identity or gender assigned at birth shall not constitute good cause.”
This isn’t just bad policy. It’s discriminatory, unconstitutional, and tyrannical.
A Constitutional Crisis
The U.S. Supreme Court has long upheld the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. In Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), the Court declared: “The child is not the mere creature of the state.” And in Troxel v. Granville (2000), the Court reaffirmed that “the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children… is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court.”
Yet AB 1084 places the state as arbiter of a child’s identity over and above the rights of parents. It effectively says: “Parents, you can raise your child—unless your views clash with state-endorsed gender ideology.”
This is an ideological test for parental rights. And it must be resisted.
A Slippery and Dangerous Precedent
Once the state arrogates to itself the power to nullify parental objections rooted in deeply held religious or biological convictions, where does it stop?
Will it override a parent’s objection to irreversible medical procedures?
Will it compel schools to keep secrets from parents about their children’s gender identity?
Will it use the denial of “affirmation” as grounds to remove children from their homes
A False Solution to Real Pain
The advocates of AB 1084 claim that this bill is about protecting transgender and nonbinary individuals from discrimination. But true compassion never requires us to lie. A government that redefines reality to affirm feelings is not protecting anyone—it’s merely swapping one kind of harm for another.
Children, especially minors struggling with gender confusion, need truth, not affirmation of delusion. They need wise, loving guidance—especially from parents, not judges. By empowering minors to legally alter their identity with minimal pushback, California encourages life-altering decisions without adequate reflection or maturity.
And these changes are not harmless. Once legal documents are changed, it can set off a domino effect leading to puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and irreversible surgeries—often before a child’s brain is even fully developed.
What Must Be Done
California Family Council stands firmly opposed to AB 1084 and any law that undermines biological truth and parental authority. We urge the legislature to reject this bill and call on citizens to raise their voices in protest.
We are also calling on constitutional lawyers and religious liberty advocates to prepare challenges to this legislation should it pass. It will not stand the test of judicial scrutiny—and it certainly will not stand the test of time.
Bill Status
This bill has already passed the Assembly Judiciary and Health Committees and now sits in the Assembly Appropriations Committee Suspense File. On May 23 the committee will announce its decision on whether the bill progresses to the full Assembly for a vote.
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.
2025 Greater Bay Area District Attorney Summit attendees. Source: Diana Becton for District Attorney
Elected District Attorneys and senior prosecutors from across the Bay, Northern California
By Bobbi Mauler, Executive Assistant, Contra Costa District Attorney
Area and beyond gathered in Contra Costa County for the 2025 Greater Bay Area DA Summit. The all-day, invitational summit brought together leaders to collaborate on legal strategies and share innovations that address some of the most urgent challenges facing the criminal justice system. Now in its third year, the summit has become a critical regional forum since its inception in Santa Clara County in 2022 and continuing in Napa County in 2023. The 2025 summit took place on May 16th at the Veterans Memorial Center in Lafayette.
Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton opened the summit with welcoming remarks that set the tone for the day’s discussions. In her address, DA Becton emphasized the importance of cross-jurisdictional partnerships and proactive approaches to public safety:
“The Greater Bay Area Summit has proven itself to be a constructive gathering where elected DAs from the Bay Area and beyond can share ideas, engage in robust discussions, and find practical solutions to increase public safety in the communities we serve. By coming together, we strengthen our collective ability to adapt to emerging technologies and respond to evolving criminal trends.”
Following her remarks, a series of expert-led panels explored timely and complex topics, including:
• The Use of Artificial Intelligence and Emerging Technology in Criminal Prosecution
• Proposition 36 Implementation
• Emerging Challenges with Race-Blind Charging
• Legal Strategies in Combating Organized Retail Theft
Under District Attorney Becton’s leadership, the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office
has remained at the forefront of innovation, equity, and public safety. Hosting the summit further
reinforced her office’s role as a convener on issues that demand both legal insight and community engagement.
The 2025 Greater Bay Area District Attorney’s Summit was attended by the elected District Attorneys from the following counties:
Diana Becton, District Attorney of Contra Costa County
Lori Frugoli, District Attorney of Marin County
Ron Freitas, District Attorney of San Joaquin County
Allison Haley, District Attorney of Napa County
Thien Ho, District Attorney of Sacramento County
Brooke Jenkins, District Attorney of San Francisco County
Ursula Jones Dickson, District Attorney of Alameda County
Jeannine Pacioni, District Attorney of Monterey County
Jeff Reisig, District Attorney of Yolo County
Carla Rodriguez, District Attorney of Sonoma County
Jeffrey Rosen, District Attorney of Santa Clara County
Steve Wagstaffe, District Attorney of San Mateo County
In a post on her campaign Facebook page, Becton wrote about the Summit, “What an exciting day! I was honored to invite and host 12 elected Distrist Attorneys and senior prosecutors from across the Bay Area and beyond as we gathered in Contra Costa County for the 2025 Greater Bay Area DA Summit.
The all-day, invitational summit brought together leaders to collaborate on legal strategies and share innovations that address some of the most urgent challenges facing the criminal justice system.”
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.
Includes reckless driving & sideshow enforcement, electric bicycle safety, autonomous vehicles, retail theft, more
SACRAMENTO – As we head into the new year, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) is highlighting the new public safety laws that were passed during this year’s legislative session and signed by Governor Gavin Newsom. Unless otherwise noted, the laws referenced below take effect on January 1, 2025.
Assembly Bill 1978 permits storing a vehicle when an individual is arrested but not taken into custody for obstructing or placing a barricade a highway or off-street parking facility for purposes of aiding a speed contest or exhibition of speed.
Assembly Bill 2186 permits the arrest and custody of individuals engaged in an exhibition of speed in an off-street parking facility. It also permits the impounding of the individual’s vehicle for not more than 30 days.
Assembly Bill 2645 allows transportation agencies operating electronic toll collection systems to share real-time license plate data with law enforcement during active emergency alerts, such as AMBER, Ebony, or Feather Alerts. This legislation eliminates the need for a search warrant in such situations, enabling quicker responses to locate suspect vehicles linked to emergencies, such as child abductions.
Beginning January 1, 2026, SB 1271 focuses on improving the safety standards for electric bicycles (e-bikes), powered mobility devices, and related lithium-ion batteries. It requires these devices and their components, such as batteries and charging systems, to be tested by accredited laboratories to meet specific safety standards. The bill also mandates labeling these products to show compliance with safety regulations, ensuring consumers are informed. Furthermore, it prohibits distributing, selling, or leasing e-bikes and related equipment unless they meet these standards, aiming to reduce risks like fire hazards and electrical malfunctions. Beginning January 1, 2028, the bill would prohibit a person from renting or offering for rental an electric bicycle, powered mobility device, charging system, or storage battery unless it has been tested to the specified safety standard.
Assembly Bill 1774 prohibits modifying an electric bicycle’s speed capability to an extent it no longer meets the definition of an electric bicycle. Also, it prohibits selling a product or device that can modify the speed capability of an electric bicycle to an extent it no longer meets the definition of an electric bicycle.
Assembly Bill 1778 authorizes a local authority within the County of Marin, or the County of Marin in unincorporated areas, to enact an ordinance or resolution prohibiting a person under 16 years of age from operating a class 2 electric bicycle or requiring a person operating a class 2 electric bicycle to wear a helmet.
Assembly Bill 2234 establishes the San Diego Electric Bicycle Safety Program and authorizes a local authority within the County of San Diego, or the County of San Diego in unincorporated areas, to enact an ordinance or resolution prohibiting a person under 12 years of age from operating a class 1 or 2 electric bicycle.
Senate Bill 1297 establishes a five-year Speed Safety System Pilot Program in the City of Malibu. The bill defines a ‘speed safety system’ as a fixed or mobile radar or laser system, or any other electronic device that utilizes automated equipment, to detect a violation of speed laws and obtains a clear photograph of a speeding vehicle’s license plate. The bill establishes mandates regarding policy, enforcement, implementation, public notification, and a system evaluation report.
Assembly Bill 2678 permits vehicles with a Clean Air Vehicle decal to drive in High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes until January 1, 2027, if federal law permits.
Senate Bill 1313 prohibits using, possessing, or selling devices designed to interfere with driver monitoring systems in vehicles equipped with advanced driver assistance systems or autonomous technology. These systems monitor driver alertness and help ensure safety when automated features are used. Violating this law is classified as an infraction. Exceptions are provided for manufacturers testing new technology, vehicle repairs, and updates compliant with safety standards or modifications for disability accommodations. This law aims to enhance road safety by preventing tampering with critical monitoring systems.
Upon the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) adoption of necessary regulations, AB 1777 creates new authority for a law enforcement officer to issue a “notice of autonomous vehicle (AV) noncompliance” to an AV manufacturer for an alleged traffic violation committed by one of their vehicles. Beginning July 1, 2026, AB 1777 establishes additional requirements for how AVs that operate without a human operator in the vehicle interact with first responders, including a requirement for manufacturers to provide a two-way device in the vehicles to communicate with first responders.
Assembly Bill 1904 authorizes a transit agency to equip a transit bus with a “yield” right-of-way sign on the left rear of the bus. The sign may be a static decal or a flashing light-emitting diode (LED).
Senate Bill 905 creates the crime of Unlawful Entry of a Vehicle, which addresses unlawfully entering a vehicle with the intent to commit a theft or any felony. It also adds the crime of Automotive Property Theft for Resale, which addresses possessing stolen property obtained from a vehicle with the intent to sell or exchange the property for value. The property’s value must be over $950.00 and not for personal use. The value of property can be combined within two years of separate acts.
Senate Bill 982 makes the crime of organized retail theft permanent and strengthens measures to address retail crime. The bill eliminates the expiration date for specific provisions targeting organized retail theft, ensuring long-term tools for law enforcement to combat this issue.
Senate Bill 1242 amends Penal Code Section 452 regarding the unlawful setting of fires. It updates penalties and legal language to clarify offenses, including circumstances involving organized retail theft.
Senate Bill 1416 focuses on combating organized retail theft by increasing penalties for those involved in the resale of stolen goods, often referred to as “fencing.” The bill, until January 1, 2030, creates sentencing enhancements for individuals who sell, exchange, or return stolen property for value, particularly when the property exceeds specific thresholds. Punishment increases from one year to four years based on a property value scale ranging from $50,000 to over $3 million.
Assembly Bill 1779 addresses the issue of organized retail theft by streamlining the prosecution process. Specifically, it allows district attorneys to consolidate charges for theft offenses committed across multiple counties into a single trial, provided all affected county district attorneys agree.
Assembly Bill 1802 ensures that the crime of organized retail theft remains permanently defined in state law and extends the CHP’s Property Crimes Task Force indefinitely. This bill eliminates the “sunset” clause that would have otherwise allowed the statute and the task force to expire.
Assembly Bill 1972 expands the scope of the CHP’s Regional Property Crimes Task Force to include cargo theft as a property crime for consideration and requires the task force to provide logistical and law enforcement support for railroad police.
This bill emphasizes cargo theft as a specific priority and aims to strengthen resources for law enforcement agencies to combat these issues. As an urgency statute, AB 1972 went into effect immediately upon its passage in August 2024 to address these concerns promptly.
Assembly Bill 2943, also called the “California Retail Theft Reduction Act,” strengthens measures to combat organized retail theft by creating a specific crime for serial retail theft, allowing the aggregation of property value for thefts committed within 90 days to qualify as grand theft. It empowers law enforcement to make arrests using video evidence or sworn statements, shields businesses from lawsuits for reporting crimes and promotes rehabilitation through diversion programs for minor offenders. The bill aims to dismantle theft rings while balancing public safety and criminal justice reforms.
Assembly Bill 3209 creates a retail crime restraining order. A court may issue a restraining order when sentencing an individual for specific retail theft-related crimes, including vandalism of a retail store and assaulting a retail store employee. The restraining order prohibits the individual from entering or being on the grounds of the establishment and may include parking lots adjacent to and used by the establishment.
The mission of the CHP is to provide the highest level of Safety, Service, and Security.
CA State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond and State Senator Lena Gonzalez want to keep U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents off California school campuses without a judicial warrant in their efforts to deport illegal immigrants.
Introduced by Senate Majority Leader Lena Gonzalez
“to protect California schools from a drop-off in attendance or funding in response to federal threats of mass deportation.”
By Liz Sanders, Director of Communications, California Department of Education
SACRAMENTO—State Superintendent Tony Thurmond is sponsoring legislation introduced by Senate Majority Leader Lena Gonzalez (D-33) on Monday, December 16, aimed at keeping U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents off of school campuses to protect California schools from a drop-off in attendance or funding in response to federal threats of mass deportation.
The legislation to be introduced by Gonzalez will protect California schools from a potential decline in attendance or funding during potential increased immigration enforcement by protecting school zones, as well as school data and sensitive family information.
The bill would:
prohibit school districts, county offices of education, charter schools, and their personnel from granting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers or other federal authorities access to campuses without a judicial warrant;
prohibit police cooperation with any immigration enforcement efforts within a one-mile radius of school to ensure a safe corridor for parents to bring their children to and from school; and
prohibit the sharing of any information about students, families, their households, or school employees with ICE officers.
“This bill seeks to push back against threats of deportation that create fear in immigrant families. These practices suppress school attendance and rob schools of needed revenue,” said Thurmond. “I am honored to partner with bill author Senator Lena Gonzalez, other legislators, and immigrant rights groups to support our families and keep ICE off our school campuses—period.”
“All California children deserve safe school environments that prioritize student learning, regardless of immigration status,” said Gonzalez (D-Long Beach). “As Chair of the California Latino Legislative Caucus, I’m proud to be partnering with Superintendent Tony Thurmond to author this important legislation, which will prevent disruptions to student learning, keep children in school, and prevent families from being torn apart.”
Research has shown that immigration enforcement in the area of schools has a chilling effect on school attendance for students from impacted communities, regardless of students’ citizenship or immigration status. It is reasonable to expect such adverse impacts on immigrant communities throughout California.
The legislation would also strengthen safeguards against unauthorized disclosure of education records and personal information to federal agents. Combined, these protections would ensure that families are able to safely send their children to school without fear of being separated from their children, and families would also be able to fill out necessary school forms that are essential to students’ well-being and educational services without fear of being separated from their children.
In California, 93 percent of children who have one or more undocumented parents are U.S. citizens. Additionally, all children in the United States, regardless of immigration status, have a right to a free and appropriate public education.
The proposed bill reflects California’s commitment to ensure that pandemic-era increases in chronic absenteeism do not recur and also reiterates California’s commitment to make sure that schools are welcoming environments where all families can safely bring their children to learn. It aligns with California’s broader efforts to promote equity, inclusion, and the protection of immigrant communities.
As schools continue to face challenges related to student safety and data privacy, this bill sends a strong message that California is committed to safeguarding our students and families.
