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.

Locations: Antioch Marina & Water Park

By City of Antioch Recreation Department

Do you wish to see less litter around our marina? Join the statewide “Trashure Hunt” on Saturday, September 20th as California’s more than 35,000 volunteers clean up local areas and waterways for Coastal Cleanup Day!

This year, California Coastal Cleanup Day will become the world’s largest scavenger hunt! Special “trash” items will be hidden at cleanup sites all across the state. If you find one of them, you can redeem it for valuable prizes! Register today and be part of Antioch’s group of volunteers at the Antioch Water Park and the Antioch Marina when you click the link in our bio. Let’s keep trash out of our waterways, Antioch!

California Coastal Cleanup Day

Saturday, September 20, 2025

9:00AM-12:00PM

Antioch Marina | 5 Marina Plaza, Antioch

Antioch Water Park | 4701 Lone Tree Way, Antioch

Register to be a volunteer at the Antioch Water Park or Antioch Marina when you visit antiochca.gov/coastal-cleanup or to find your nearest site, visit coastalcleanupday.org.

Department of Cannabis Control also recalled 444 unsafe or noncompliant products; 413,302 illegal cannabis plants eradicated, 185,873 pounds seized; approve over 1,000 new businesses throughout state

Recent efforts continue to prioritize consumer and public safety and support the legal cannabis market

By California Department of Cannabis Control

Sacramento, CA – In its ongoing efforts to protect consumer safety, expand access to the legal market while dismantling illegal cannabis operations, the Department of Cannabis Control (DCC) today announced that it has seized over $62M in illegal cannabis, recalled 444 unsafe or noncompliant products, issued 256 new licenses, and transitioned 748 businesses from provisional licensure to annual licensure from April – June 2025.

Shutting down illegal cannabis operations

During the second quarter (Q2) of 2025, DCC-led or assisted enforcement actions (separate from UCETF actions) that resulted in the seizure of $62.4M worth of illegal cannabis, 44,187 illegal plants, 36,312 pounds of illegal cannabis flower, $89,535 in cash, and 16 firearms. 

“DCC’s second quarter efforts show a department that is moving with urgency, strategy and accountability to protect Californians, support responsible operators and ensure the cannabis market delivers on its promise. These actions represent not just enforcement, but the protection of California’s communities, consumers, and natural resources.”
     –Department of Cannabis Control Director Nicole Elliott

Consumer safety and business compliance

The DCC takes swift action to recall or embargo cannabis products that could pose a risk to consumers. In Q2, DCC issued 34 recalls covering 444 products. These recalls included 183 products recalled due to incomplete regulatory compliance testing and 181 recalls for labeling that was attractive to children. Additionally, 62 administrative actions were taken to ensure cannabis businesses operate within regulatory and consumer expectations resulting in 25 license revocations, 2 suspensions, and 35 citations with fines.

Transitioning and issuing cannabis licenses

During the second quarter, DCC converted 748 provisional licenses to annual status. The most transitions to annual licenses took place in Los Angeles County (328 licenses) followed by Mendocino County (137). Additionally, 256 new cannabis licenses were issued since April.

Governor’s Unified Cannabis Enforcement Task Force Results Seizes Additional $476 million of Unlicensed Cannabis Products During Same 3 Months

Governor Gavin Newsom announced on July 10, 2025, that the state seized $476 million worth of illegal cannabis between April and June, thanks to the combined efforts of the Governor’s Unified Cannabis Enforcement Task Force (UCETF), co-led by the Department of Cannabis Control (DCC) and the Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW).

“As a proof point of California’s commitment to the legal cannabis industry, the state seized over 92 tons of illicit cannabis product in the past three months alone,” said Newsom. “I thank the federal, state, and local partners who conducted these enforcement efforts for protecting consumers and supporting our legal cannabis market.”

In the efforts announced that day, UCETF received support from the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, California Department of Parks and Recreation, California Department of Pesticide Regulation, Employment Development Department, and California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

Combined enforcement highlights from April through June include:

•       413,302 illegal cannabis plants eradicated
•       185,873 pounds of illegal cannabis seized
•       214 warrants served
•       77 firearms seized
•       93 arrests

“Our teams continue to take an aggressive and proactive approach to eliminating unlicensed cannabis activities,” said DCC Director Nicole Elliott. “We will remain laser-focused on dismantling illicit cannabis operations until they are all permanently shut down.”

“Over the past quarter, UCETF conducted numerous highly strategic operations that significantly impacted the daily activities of illegal cannabis operators,” said Nathaniel Arnold, Chief of the Law Enforcement Division for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). “This success would not be possible without the continued support and dedication of our partners throughout the state.”

In May, UCETF conducted its largest successful operation to date with 200 sworn officers and staff from state, local, and federal agencies participating in an enforcement effort spanning 4,600 square miles in the Central Valley. Through 71 search warrants, officials seized:

• 105,700 illicit cannabis plants
• 22,057 pounds of processed cannabis valued at $123.5 million 
• Nine firearms

A unified strategy across California 

Since 2019, officials have seized and destroyed over 950 tons, or over 1.9 million pounds, of illegal cannabis worth an estimated retail value of $3.6 billion through over 1,700+ operations.

The cannabis task force was established in 2022 by Governor Newsom to enhance collaboration and enforcement coordination between state, local, and federal partners. Partners on the task force include the Department of Cannabis Control, the Department of Pesticide Regulation, the Department of Toxic Substances Control, and the Department of Fish and Wildlife, among others. 

According to Moorea Warren of DCC Public Affairs, “The $476M is the amount of illegal cannabis seized by the Governor’s Unified Cannabis Enforcement Taskforce (UCETF). The Taskforce is co-chaired by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Department of Cannabis Control (DCC). The $62.4 million is the amount of illegal cannabis seized by DCC’s Law Enforcement Division and is separate from UCETF’s amounts.”

Financial support for long-term enforcement efforts

In June, the Legislature made key changes to strengthen the DCC’s long-term enforcement efforts. This included amending state law to dedicate cannabis tax revenue to fund DCC civil and criminal enforcement activities, reducing the burden on licensees while ensuring sustained actions against illegal operators. In addition, the Legislature expanded Board of State and Community Corrections grant eligibility to local jurisdictions, especially those allowing retail access, to further enhance and support local enforcement efforts against illegal cannabis activity.

About the Department of Cannabis Control

The Department of Cannabis Control (DCC) licenses and regulates commercial cannabis activity within California. DCC works closely with all stakeholders, including businesses and local jurisdictions, to create a sustainable legal cannabis industry and a safe and equitable marketplace. DCC develops and implements progressive cannabis policies with robust protections for public health, safety and the environment. To learn more about the California cannabis market, state licenses or laws, visit http://www.cannabis.ca.gov.

To learn more about the legal California cannabis market, state licenses, and laws, visit cannabis.ca.gov.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

Aug. 19th rally in Sacramento

By Greg Burt, California Family Council

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.”

Attorney Nicole Pearson, founder of Facts Law Truth Justice, testified before the State Senate:

“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.

Watch Pastor Hibb’s announcement here: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DMyRHyHPhXb/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=d4429a01-f040-4f0f-9efa-f657888103ec

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.

Antioch PD, Contra Costa Sheriff’s Dep’t among 148 Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program recipients

CCC Sheriff Forensic Services Division will use funds for toxicology crime lab

By Tami Grimes, CHP Public Information Officer

SACRAMENTO – The California Highway Patrol (CHP) today announced more than $35 million in grant funding to 148 California law enforcement agencies, crime laboratories, local government agencies and nonprofit organizations to help address the dangers of driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs.

“As the legal cannabis market continues to grow, so do the state’s efforts to ensure Californians are recreating responsibly. By supporting the organizations that enforce and amplify our laws on the ground, we can keep everyone safer,” said Governor Gavin Newsom.

The grants from Proposition 64, the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act, assigned the CHP the responsibility of administering grants for education, prevention and enforcement programs aimed at helping communities tackle impaired driving. Additionally, funds are available for crime laboratories that conduct forensic toxicology testing. The funding for these grants comes from a tax on the sale of cannabis and cannabis products in California.

“This funding represents a major step forward in our ongoing mission to save lives and prevent impaired driving,”said CHP Commissioner Sean Duryee. “With over $35 million going to nearly 150 public safety partners across the state, we’re expanding our reach like never before. These resources will help those on the frontlines keep California’s roads safer for everyone.”

These funds will go towards a variety of activities. One hundred twenty-six recipients of law enforcement grants will use the funding to combat impaired driving in their communities, including Antioch, Danville, Pinole, Pleasant Hill, Richmond and San Ramon Police Departments. The funds will also support drug recognition evaluator training to improve the identification of drug-impaired drivers, as well as public outreach campaigns, including educational presentations and community events.

Eleven recipients of education grants will use the funds to inform local communities about impaired driving laws while highlighting the dangers of driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs.

Seven recipients of two-year toxicology crime laboratory grants, including the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department Forensic Services Division, will use the funds to eliminate backlogs in analyzing forensic science evidence and to purchase or upgrade laboratory equipment to enhance testing capabilities.

Four recipients of two-year medical examiner’s and coroner’s office grants will use the funds to improve and advance data collection in cases involving driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs.

With the passage of Proposition 64, the Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA), California voters mandated the state set aside funding for the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to award grants to local governments and qualified nonprofit organizations, as described in Revenue and Taxation Code Section 34019(f)(3)(B).

The Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program marks an important step toward reducing impaired driving crashes, increasing public awareness surrounding the dangers of impaired driving, and making California’s roadways a safer place to travel.                  

The application process for future grant funding is expected to reopen in early 2026. More information is available on the CHP website at CHP’s Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program.

 The mission of the CHP is to provide the highest level of Safety, Service, and Security.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

A legislatively mandated and voter-approved gas tax increase of 1.6 cents and updated fuel standards that could, according to experts, translate to 5 to 8 cents not 65 cents per gallon

What you need to know: There are many disingenuous claims swirling about California gas prices “set to soar” – the truth is that gas prices won’t come anywhere close to increasing by 65 cents, as many would have you believe.  

By Office of the California Governor

SACRAMENTO – California gas prices are 20 cents lower than one month ago and 17 cents lower than one year ago – despite a swirl of misinformation drawing attention to current prices.

According to a 2024 report, thanks to major improvements in fuel efficiency, California drivers rank 45th in the nation for gasoline consumption and 21st in spending on gasoline per capita. Trump’s tariffs and policies impacting the price of crude oil stand to swing gas prices far more than any state policy. 

Driven by misinformation pushed by Republican lawmakers and the oil industry, there remains a lot of speculation about California gas prices. Here are the facts.

CLAIM: California gas prices will go up by 65 cents or higher on July 1. 

FALSE. There are two separate changes to fuel prices expected on or around July 1 – a legislatively mandated and voter-approved gas tax increase of 1.6 cents and updated fuel standards that could, according to experts, translate to 5 to 8 cents. 

• Gas tax: California’s gasoline tax will increase by 1.6 cents per gallon, starting July 1, as required by law. This annual inflation increase was enacted by the Legislature in 2017 to help pay for road repairs – and overwhelmingly approved by voters in 2018 when they rejected a repeal attempt. 
• Fuel standard: Additionally, changes to the state’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) – which is not a tax – have been requested to go into effect on July 1. Experts at UC Davis estimate this program, first established by Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, could add between 5 and 8 cents per gallon – well below one extreme projection that showed 65 cents. In the long term, LCFS is estimated to reduce fuel costs for Californians per mile by 42% – translating to savings of over $20 billion in gasoline costs every year by 2045. Studies also show that LCFS credit prices have no correlation with gasoline prices.

CLAIM: Gas prices could top $8 a gallon by next year.  

FALSE. That number – widely reported in the media – comes from an unscientific analysis whose author has close ties with the oil industry and has been on the payroll of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The author fails to provide evidence to support his main claim and only relies on vague references to models with no details on what those models are based on. Other experts, such as these Stanford economists, say gas price increases based on recent refinery announcements are likely to be negligible.

CalTax Says Gas Tax Will Increase to 61.2 Cents per Gallon

According to the California Taxpayers Association, California’s excise tax on gasoline will increase to 61.2 cents per gallon July 1, an increase of 1.6 cents per gallon over the current rate of 59.6 cents per gallon, the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration announced June 4.

The tax rate on diesel fuel – a matter of great interest for many businesses, especially those in the trucking and agricultural industries – will increase from 45.4 cents per gallon to 46.6 cents per gallon, likely leading to higher costs for consumers for many goods and services.

The tax increases are in addition to any other increases that may be imposed as a result of fuel standards developed by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Increases resulting from CARB actions also would take effect July 1.

The gas tax rate has more than doubled during the past 10 years. The largest year-to-year increase occurred in 2017 as a result of SB 1 (Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017), which increased gas tax by 12 cents per gallon and increased the diesel tax by 20 cents per gallon (both effective November 1, 2017) and required that the rates be adjusted annually based on the California Consumer Price Index.

Although Californians often mention vehicle-related taxes as a topic of major concern – and cited an increase in the vehicle license tax as a major factor in their decision to recall Governor Gray Davis in 2003 – the CDTFA did not issue a news release or use its social media channels to alert the media or general public to the increase. Instead, the increase was posted on the agency’s website as a special notice to retailers of gas and diesel fuels.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

By Greg Burt, VP, California Family Council

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.

Only recipient in Contra Costa County

SACRAMENTO—Thirty-four California schools have been named recipients of the 2025 Civic Learning Awards, honoring and recognizing measurable schoolwide achievements in civics. The award program, now in its twelfth year, is co-sponsored by State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond and California Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero.

“When young people advocate and raise their voices, they have the power to drive meaningful change in their communities,” said Superintendent Thurmond. “Education is fundamental to achieving our democratic ideals, and these schools have played an exceptional role in shaping the leaders of the future.”

“I find these award applications truly inspiring—each one is deserving of recognition,” said Chief Justice Guerrero. “They highlight the powerful stories of committed educators who, despite the challenges, are finding creative ways to ensure students can fully engage with and understand civics.”

Since their inception in 2013, the awards have been presented more than 500 times to traditional, charter, and magnet schools. In recent years, community schools and continuation schools have submitted high-ranking applications. This year, a court school applied for the first time. 

Applications are reviewed and scored by a panel of judges comprised of representatives from the California courts and the California Department of Education (CDE) who are not tied to counties or districts in the pool. 

In addition to the information provided by the applicant, points are added for schools in districts with Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAPs) that include terms and actions associated with civic learning. Applicants also earn points for participating in the Judges in the Classroom program and for creating processes and criteria related to the State Seal of Civic Engagement.

Middle School: Antioch Charter Academy II earned a 2025 Civic Learning Award of Distinction

Award of Distinction in 2017; Award of Merit in 2018

Antioch | Contra Costa County

Antioch Unified School District

The Civic Learning Awards began in 2013 and are part of the Chief Justice’s Power of Democracy Civic Learning Initiative, which includes other programs such as Judges in the Classroom. More information is available on the CDE Civic Learning Award for California Public Schools web page.

Additional resources to support civic learning and engagement are available on the CDE Resources to Support Civic Engagement web page and the CDE State Seal of Civic Engagement web page.