California and the federal government battle over hospice fraud, as victims lose coverage and care

LOS ANGELES (AP) — At 71 and a few years into retirement, Linda Henry felt like she was in good health, and only went to her doctor in Southern California for the occasional checkup.

So it was a shock when she found out in 2024 that she had been enrolled in hospice, a specialized end-of-life care usually provided to people with six months or less to live. A Medicare worker told her the system said she had heart failure.

Henry was a victim of rampant fraud in the hospice industry, a problem that’s been especially extreme in California, where scammers have taken advantage of historically weak government oversight. Fraudsters have created fake hospices and tricked people into enrolling, or stolen people’s identities to bill Medicare for hospice services.

California’s been a focus of the Trump administration’s crackdown on fraud in federally-funded health programs, with more than 1,000 California hospices removed from Medicare since early 2025. Federal officials estimate LA County alone accounts for an estimated $3.5 billion in fraudulent hospice claims.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

The state says it’s doing its part to tackle the issue. California has revoked nearly 500 licenses since putting a moratorium on new hospices in 2021 and in June adopted long-awaited emergency regulations that set more stringent criteria for approving new licenses.

Since hospice is a form of palliative care meant for terminally ill patients, once someone enrolls in it, Medicare will not pay for additional medical treatment outside of it, leaving vulnerable seniors to miss out on appointments and be denied crucial care. Meanwhile, millions of taxpayer dollars are being funneled to fraudsters every year, and those who truly need hospice care might not get it if they enroll with a fraudulent hospice operator.

Advocates say they don’t have a clear estimate of how many people like Henry have been unwittingly caught up in fraud, but urge state and federal cooperation.

Hospice fraud has been a major problem in California

In 2026, the state had about 2,100 hospice organizations, down from 2,800 four years prior. New York, which has far more stringent rules for registering a hospice, has just 39, according to its state health department.

A 2022 state audit found rampant fraud and abuse in the system, particularly in LA County. It found dozens of hospice agencies were often clustered in the same building as well as a rapid increase in the number of hospices being established and abnormally high rates of patients being discharged. Hospice is often provided at patients’ homes, meaning one registered hospice can serve patients in numerous locations.

In April, federal prosecutors made arrests in five cases involving hospice fraud in the LA area. A week later, California Attorney General Rob Bonta said 21 people were arrested for a multimillion scheme to use stolen identities to charge for hospice services. His office has filed more than 100 hospice-related criminal cases and secured over 50 hospice-related convictions since 2021.

Click here to read the full article in AP News

Meta to pay $17 billion — and limit ‘likes’ for teens — in social media settlement with states

Meta agreed to pay up to $17 billion and to make changes to its platforms to end a major case on children and social media addiction.

California will receive up to $2.1 billion if the settlement is approved by a judge, according to a statement from the Attorney General Rob Bonta. Meta will agree to a payment of more than $12 billion, with an increase up to the $17 billion over 10 years if other social media companies settle related claims, the New York Times reported.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

A group of 47 states led by the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey accused Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, of engineering its products to be addictive to children.

Despite knowing the products could damage kids’ mental health, the attorneys general said, Meta continued to promote them, even as its own research showed harms. The case has been compared to past litigation against Big Tobacco, and was seen as a major test of similar litigation tech companies face around the United States.

“Today, we have secured a settlement with Meta that will make social media less dangerous for our kids and make a world of a difference for children and their families,” Bonta said in the statement.

A Meta spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Opening statements in the suit started just last week in an Oakland federal court, with a weekslong trial anticipated. The case was among the largest in a series of bellwether cases testing claims that major tech companies deliberately marketed products to children, even as those products damaged their mental health.

Earlier this year, Meta and Google were found liable by a Los Angeles jury in a suit that tested similar claims. Meta lost another, similar suit in New Mexico this year as well. But today’s settlement eclipses any legal challenge so far.

Lexi Hazam and Previn Warren, attorneys who have represented families and school districts in other litigation against tech companies, praised the ruling in a statement, calling it “a major step toward holding Meta accountable for the harm its platforms have caused young people.”

Meta continues to face claims from parents and school districts around the country. Google, Snap, and TikTok are among the companies facing similar suits.

“We will not rest until every one of these plaintiffs sees justice for the harms caused by all of the defendants’ platforms,” Hazam and Warren said.

Under the terms of the deal, which still must be approved by a judge, Meta will change how it operates its platforms. The changes would include:

Click here to read the full article in CalMatters

California to sue Trump administration again over mail-in voting restrictions

Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Monday that California intends to sue the Trump administration again over President Donald Trump’s efforts to impose new restrictions on mail-in voting ahead of the November midterms. The announcement came after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the administration to move forward with key parts of Trump’s March executive order on elections, pausing a lower court ruling that California and other states had previously won. Trump’s order called for the federal government to create state-by-state citizenship lists and for the U.S. Postal Service to impose new requirements on mail-in ballots.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

The Supreme Court did not rule on if Trump’s order is legal. Instead, the decision allows the administration to continue pursuing the order while leaving the door open for California and other states to challenge specific policies as they are implemented — setting up another round of litigation just as mail-in voting will begin in some states. “California will be suing AGAIN to block these Orwellian rules from being implemented,” Newsom said in a news release. California and 22 other states, along with Washington, D.C., initially sued the Trump administration in April, arguing that the order illegally interfered with states’ constitutional authority to run elections. A federal judge agreed in June and blocked key parts of the order, finding that Trump had overstepped his authority. The judge also found that the Postal Service did not have authority to control mail-in voting.

Click here to read the full article in the Sacramento Bee

California Sues to Stop One County’s Ban on Most Mail Voting

Shasta County voters had approved a ballot measure that would have heavily restricted voting by mail and imposed photo ID requirements. State officials said the new rules were illegal.

California officials have sued to block a measure approved by Shasta County voters that would end most mail voting, require voters to present government-issued photo identification to register and to vote, and mandate the hand-counting of ballots.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

In their lawsuit, state officials argued that the Shasta County ballot initiative, Measure B, which passed in June with 55 percent of the vote, violated state election laws and needed to be struck down before the November general election. The lawsuit was filed in California’s Third District Court of Appeal on Friday by Attorney General Rob Bonta and the state’s top elections official, Secretary of State Shirley Weber.

The five proponents of Measure B, who are named as “real parties in interest” in the lawsuit, said in a statement that the litigation “is just one more stark demonstration of the crushing hostility and contempt that our elected officials hold for citizens who use the initiative process to improve elections and safeguard their freedom.”

Measure B’s supporters included the county’s current clerk and registrar of voters, Clint Curtis, who was ousted by voters in the same June election in which the measure was passed. The newly elected registrar, a longtime elections official named Joanna Francescut, had been fired by Mr. Curtis.

A Shasta County spokeswoman said the county was unable to comment on ongoing litigation.

Click here to read the full article in the LA Times

Corrupt California is Still Counting Ballots Even With Federal Lawsuit Looming Large

In 18 California counties, there are more voter registrations than citizens over the age of eighteen

federal lawsuit was filed May 20, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Secretary of State Shirley Weber alleging that 873,092 inactive voter registrations are still on the rolls. Orange County Supervisor Don Wagner, the Republican candidate for secretary of state, joined the American Independent Party of California and Judicial watch in the lawsuit.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

The lawsuit states:

Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) provides that “each State shall … conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove … from the official lists of eligible voters” the names of voters who have become ineligible by reason of death or a change of residence.

The lawsuit acknowledges that:

“no registration may be cancelled on that ground unless the registrant either (1) confirms this fact in writing, or (2) fails to timely respond to an address-confirmation notice described by the statute (the “Confirmation Notice”), and fails to vote or contact the registrar for two consecutive general federal elections.”

If a registrant fails to respond to such a Confirmation Notice, and then fails to vote (or contact the registrar) during a statutory waiting period extending from the date of the notice through the next two general federal elections, the registration is cancelled. These cancellations are mandatory under both federal and California law.

Under both federal and California law, a voter registration is referred to as “inactive” when a registrant has failed to respond to a Confirmation Notice and the statutory waiting period has commenced, but has not yet concluded.

It’s pretty clear that when someone moves out of state, if they notify the Secretary of State in writing of their move, that should remove them from the state’s voter rolls. If they move and the state notifies them, and they don’t respond, they are to be removed from the voter rolls.

Instead California has allowed more than 800,000 inactive voter registrations to remain inactive and on the rolls for at least three elections — with 151,202 on the rolls after at least four consecutive elections, the suit claims.

The lawsuit also says that Sworn interrogatory responses submitted by Defendant Weber’s office in Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Weber, No. 2:24-3750 (C.D. Cal. 2024) establish that, following the close of the last EAC reporting period in November 2024 through December 9, 2025, 21 California counties (Alameda, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Del Norte, El Dorado, Glenn, Lassen, Marin, Mendocino, Modoc, Mono, Napa, San Bernardino, Santa Cruz, Shasta, Siskiyou, Stanislaus, Trinity, Tulare, and Yuba Counties) made zero Section 8(d)(1)(B) removals.

In those same interrogatory responses, Defendant attested that another six counties made fewer than 30 removals under that provision during that period (Alpine (29 removals), Imperial (1), Lake (1), San Benito (5), San Joaquin (25), and Sutter (17)).

According to the Census Bureau, approximately 660,000 (10.8%) of California residents are not living in the same house as they were one year ago. More than 660,000 California residents moved out of state in 2024 (the most recent year for which such data is available), about 690,000 California residents moved out of state in 2023, and about 818,000 California residents moved out of state in 2022.

The lawsuit concludes:

If Defendant (SOS) was actually conducting a general program that makes a reasonable effort to cancel the registrations of voters who have become ineligible because of a change of residence, it would not be possible for ten counties with a combined total of 1,796,437 registrations to cancel zero registrations in a two-year period under Section 8(d)(1)(B).

If Defendant was actually conducting a general program that makes a reasonable effort to cancel the registrations of voters who have become ineligible because of a change of residence, it would not be possible for another ten counties with a combined total of 1,643,921 registrations to cancel a total of 218 registrations in a two-year period under Section 8(d)(1)(B).

All of this is to say that California is cheating by keeping former state residents on the voter rolls.

Compare corrupt California’s ridiculous and deliberately convoluted system to Florida’s:

Click here to read the full article in the California Globe

SPLC Indicted for Funding the Hate It Pretended to Fight

A federal grand jury alleges the Southern Poverty Law Center secretly funneled over $3 million to individuals and groups, including the KKK, Aryan Nations, and the National Socialist Party of America

The Southern Poverty Law Center, long notorious as a partisan smear factory masquerading as a civil rights watchdog, was hit with an 11-count federal indictment Tuesday for wire fraud, false statements to banks, and conspiracy to commit money laundering.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

A federal grand jury in Montgomery, Alabama, alleges the SPLC secretly funneled over $3 million in donor dollars between 2014 and 2023 to individuals tied to violent extremist outfits — including the Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations, and National Socialist Party of America — all while raking in contributions by pretending to fight the very “hate” it was allegedly bank rolling. 

According to the indictment:

The objective of the scheme and artifice was to obtain money via donations through materially false representations and omissions about what the donated funds would be used for.

In order to covertly pay the individuals, the SPLC opened bank accounts connected to a series of fictitious entities. The covert nature of the accounts allowed the SPLC to disguise the true nature, source, ownership, and control of the fraudulently obtained donated money the SPLC paid the individuals. In order to keep the scheme going, the SPLC made a series of false statements related to the operation of the accounts.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche didn’t mince words at the joint press conference with FBI Director Kash Patel: “The SPLC is manufacturing racism to justify its existence.” He added that the organization was “not dismantling these groups. It was instead manufacturing the extremism it purports to oppose by paying sources to stoke racial hatred.”

“The SPLC allegedly engaged in a massive fraud operation to deceive their donors, enrich themselves, and hide their deceptive operations from the public,” said FBI Director Kash Patel. “They lied to their donors, vowing to dismantle violent extremist groups, and actually turned around and paid the leaders of these very extremist groups – even utilizing the funds to have these groups facilitate the commission of state and federal crimes. That is illegal – and this is an ongoing investigation against all individuals involved.”

This bombshell indictment is the latest — and most damning — chapter in the SPLC’s troubled history. Once respected for taking on actual Klan violence in the 1970s and ’80s, the organization devolved into a lavish, multimillion dollar grift machine that weaponized “hate group” labels against mainstream conservatives, Christians, pro-family organizations, and parental rights groups.

The SPLC’s notorious “Hate Map” and annual “Year in Hate and Extremism” reports have long been criticized as partisan hit lists, grouping conservative groups, like Moms for Liberty, with actual neo-Nazis. It has faced lawsuits and settlements for false labeling, including a notable apology to Dr. Ben Carson. The FBI under Director Patel later severed all ties with the SPLC, branding it a “partisan smear machine.”

Their inciting rhetoric hasn’t stayed on paper.

In August 2012, after the SPLC branded the Family Research Council (FRC) — a respected pro-family policy organization — a “hate group” for its biblical stance on marriage and human sexuality, gunman Floyd Lee Corkins II stormed FRC headquarters in Washington, D.C. Armed with a pistol and a backpack full of Chick-fil-A sandwiches (meant to be smeared on his victims). Corkins told investigators he chose the target directly from the SPLC’s hate map. He opened fire, wounding security guard Leo Johnson, who heroically stopped the massacre before Corkins could carry out his plan to kill as many people as possible. Corkins was convicted and sentenced to 25 years in federal prison.

Click here to read the full article in the California Globe

Meta and Google damaged girl’s mental health, landmark trial concludes

Finding of liability for girl’s addiction to Instagram and YouTube could open floodgates to thousands more lawsuits

Meta and Google have been found liable in a landmark court verdict for the harm caused to a young woman who became addicted to their platforms.

The ruling in Los Angeles — after a six-week trial in which Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Meta, gave evidence — is expected to open the floodgates to further lawsuits from families of youngsters harmed by an addiction to social media.

The case was brought by a 20-year-old woman from California who said the social media giants intentionally designed their services to be addictive, comparing their harm to cigarettes.

She said that her mental health had suffered after she became hooked as a child on Instagram, owned by Meta, and YouTube, owned by Google.

The progress of the case was being closely watched by grieving families of victims. They were supported by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, who have used their charitable organisation, Archewell, to campaign for better digital safety.

Zuckerberg, one of the world’s richest men, testified that his company had adequate safety measures. After more than 40 hours of deliberation over nine days, a jury ruled that the Silicon Valley giants were liable.

Click here to read the full article in the Times

BREAKING: State of California and DCCC Trying to Change Rules Already Agreed to in Prop 50 Lawsuit

‘Justice delayed is justice denied’

California Governor Gavin Newsom unconstitutionally overturned the voter-approved California Redistricting Commission with Proposition 50, which was just passed by voters. That is bad enough, but the new congressional district maps were drawn based on racial lines, a recent lawsuit alleges.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

The Dhillon Law Group, Assemblyman David Tangipa, 18 California Voters, and the California Republican Party announced Wednesday November 5, 2025 that they filed a Federal lawsuit challenging Prop. 50, alleging it unconstitutionally racially gerrymanders districts in violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.

The bottom line: “When a state unlawfully engages in racial gerrymandering, it also violates the Fifteenth Amendment, which provides that the right of citizens to vote cannot be denied or abridged on account of race or color,” the lawsuit says.

Attorney Mark Meuser, Constitutional and Election Law Attorney with Dhillon Law Group, tells us that as of today, the state of California and the DCCC are trying to change the rules already agreed upon in order to delay a hearing on this case until January 20, well after the December date those running for Congress will know what district they are running in.

“8 days after Plaintiffs filed their complaint in which they allege that Prop 50’s map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, the state of California, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), along with plaintiffs entered into a stipulation for a briefing schedule,” Meuser told the Globe. “Plaintiffs have asked the Court for an order by December 5 so that those running for Congress know what district they are running in. December 19 is the first day candidates for Congress can gather signatures in lieu of a filing fee. In light of the joint stipulation, the Court has told the state of California and the DCCC to file their opposition to our motion for a preliminary injunction by tomorrow (Nov. 21) and the hearing on our motion for preliminary injunction (i.e. which set of maps will control the 2026 election – the 2021 commission map or Prop. 50’s map) has been scheduled for Dec. 3.”

“Now, 2 days before their opposition to the motion is due, the state of California and the DCCC are trying to change the rules that they already agreed to. They want to delay a hearing on this case until January 20,” Meuser said.

“Justice delayed is justice denied. It is clear with this filing last night that the state of California and the DCCC are trying to run out the clock on justice. By running out the clock, the state of California and the DCCC hope that the Court will just rule that it is too late and that the Prop 50 maps (even if they are an unconstitutional gerrymander) must control for the 2026 election cycle. Plaintiffs’ attorneys at the Dhillon Law Group are zealously pursuing this case in an expedited matter to ensure that the Courts have plenty of time to issue a decision on the important underlying issue of whether Prop 50’s map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander thus requiring that the 2021 Commission maps remain in effect for the 2026 election cycle.”

As the Globe reported, the lawsuit says:

“The California Legislature issued a press release announcing that Proposition 50 creates two new districts to “empower Latino voters to elect their candidates of choice,” adding them to the pre-existing fourteen such districts. The Legislature characterized these sixteen districts as “Voting Rights Act districts,” meaning districts that are specifically designed to favor one race or ethnicity of voters. The consultant who drew the lines also explained that the first thing that he did when drawing the Proposition 50 map was to add a “Latino District” that the Independent Citizens District had previously eliminated and that he altered the lines of a district to make it a “Latino-influenced district” by ensuring its voting age population was “35 percent Latino.”

The lawsuit states that because California’s Hispanic voters are well represented by Latino candidates to both state and federal office: “California’s Hispanic voters have successfully elected their preferred candidates to both state and federal office, without being thwarted by a racial majority voting as a bloc. This is unsurprising because Latinos are the most numerous demographic in the state and California voters nearly always vote based on their party affiliation, not their race.”

Read more about the lawsuit here.

Click here to read the full article in the California Globe

Breaking: California Republicans, Citizens File Supreme Court Petition to Block Newsom-Backed Redistricting Measure from November Ballot

Lawyers argue Legislature violated constitution bypassing independent redistricting commission, and asks voters to vote on two separate issues

California Republicans announced at a press conference Monday they have filed an emergency Writ of Mandate with the California Supreme Court to stop the special election currently scheduled for November 4th because the California Legislature and Governor Gavin Newsom violated the California Constitution in putting this ballot initative on the ballot.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Last Thursday, the legislature passed the 3-measure package on Congressional redistrictingSenate Bill 280, Assembly Constitutional Amendment 8, and Assembly Bill 604.

Prior to passage of the three measures, Republican lawmakers and the Dhillon Law Group filed an emergency petition filed with the California Supreme Court to stop Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders from rushing through the unconstitutional redistricting plan without the 30–day public review period required by the California Constitution, the Globe reported.

The California Supreme Court denied Republicans’ injunction request to halt Governor Gavin Newsom’s and Democrats’ redistricting scheme late Wednesday.

Attorney Michael A. Columbo with the Dhillon Law Group was joined Monday by two of the the petition’s plaintiffs: Senator Tony Strickland (R-Huntington Beach) and Assemblyman Tri Ta (R-Orange County) at the press conference, along with Corrin Rankin, the Chairwoman of the California Republican Party.

Senator Suzette Martinez Valladares and Assemblyman Carl DeMaio are the other elected legislators plaintiffs.

The people already decided that politicians shouldn’t draw their own districts, Attorney Columbo said at the press conference. “Not only does Respondent’s redistricting gambit violate every one of these core constitutional restrictions, but they also rammed this complex scheme comprising hundreds of pages of data through the Legislature in just 4 days, in violation of the Constitution’s Article IV, § 8(a) requirement for 30 days’ public notice of new legislation,” Columbo said.

enator Strickland addressed the single-subject rule violation: “Based on the two different questions in the bill. I’d vote differently on each,” he said, showing the obvious conflict. “The time to decide is election time, not rigging elections.”

He also posited that the “temporary” suspension of the independent California Redistricting Commission won’t be temporary at all “once politicians get that power.”

“We already have the Gold Standard [with the independent California Redistricting Commission]: hundreds of hearings over months, with the goal to keep cities and counties together.”

Assemblyman Tri Ta tied the issue to his own immigrant story: “I fled a country that never had free elections to come here for freedom. What happened last week on the Assembly floor was outrageous and a complete violation of the California Constitution. And now, on top of that, we are being forced to spend more than $200 million on a special election when Californians are asking for relief on affordability, crime, and homelessness.”

“This is not a Republican or Democrat issue,” California Republican Party Chairwoman Corrin Rankin said, emphasizing the nonpartisan nature of the lawsuit. “It’s about good governance. Californians overwhelmingly voted for transparency and an independent commission to stop politicians from drawing their own districts. What we see now are backroom deals made without voters’ knowledge, and that is wrong. Californians deserve better than to have their rights trampled in the dark.”

Click here to read the full article in the California Globe

FEC says they can’t defend my lawsuit on National Public Radio for election interference


Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

This week, the Federal Election Commission filed a “Notice of Lack of Quorum” in my Federal lawsuit to compel that agency to investigate National Public Radio for bias and illegal express advocacy for Harris and Biden in the 2024 election. The FEC says they cannot defend against my lawsuit because they currently don’t have a quorum of Commissioners. Normally, when a defendant says they can’t defend a lawsuit, the Plaintiff is entitled to a “default judgment” in their favor. A default in my favor would require the FEC to initiate an investigation of NPR, starting with the 53 pages of documentation we submitted to the FEC evidencing bias and control of the NPR newsroom by the Democratic Party and its operatives; along with conducting an interview of Uri Berliner, a former journalist at NPR, who famously went public and checked the political party registrations of the NPR staff and found that of 87 members, all were registered Democrats. Further, an FEC inquiry into the texts and emails with Democratic party officials of Katherine Maher, the CEO of NPR, who was a volunteer for the Biden-Harris campaign in 2020 and has admitted in Congressional testimony that the Hunter Biden laptop story was suppressed at NPR (likely for political reasons), might well reveal, as the Wikileaks disclosures revealed between John Podesta and news reporters, additional new information about illegal coordination of news stories at NPR with the Harris and Biden campaigns. The FEC never dismissed my initial complaint for lack of substance, rather they assigned it a “low priority” and dismissed it. The law allows me to ask a Federal judge to take a fresh look at whether an investigation should be initiated and does not require a finding against NPR. While the FEC may lack a quorum, it continues to exercise its investigative powers and can do so in my case. So now it is up to Judge Moss, an Obama appointee whom has some respect for fairness in the legal community, to decide if I am entitled to a default judgment since the FEC says it will not defend against my lawsuit.

Click here to read the full article in James Lacy’s Substack