Deficiency Determinations

September 7, 2026 By Chris Micheli Leave a Comment

Deals with deficiency determinations under the California Sales and Use Tax Laws

Article 2 of Chapter 5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code deals with deficiency determinations under the California Sales and Use Tax Laws.

Section 6481 provides that, if the board is not satisfied with the return or returns of the tax or the amount of tax, or other amount, required to be paid to the state by any person, it may compute and determine the amount required to be paid upon the basis of the facts contained in the return or returns or upon the basis of any information within its possession or that may come into its possession.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

One or more deficiency determinations may be made of the amount due for one or for more than one period. When a business is discontinued, a determination may be made at any time thereafter, within the periods specified, as to liability arising out of that business, irrespective of whether the determination is issued prior to the due date of the liability.

Section 6482 provides that the amount of the determination, exclusive of penalties, is required to bear interest at the modified adjusted rate per month, or fraction thereof, from the last day of the month following the quarterly period for which the amount or any portion thereof should have been returned until the date of payment.

Section 6483 states that, in making a determination the board may offset overpayments for a period or periods, together with interest on the overpayments, against underpayments for another period or periods, against penalties, and against the interest on the underpayments. The interest on underpayments and overpayments is computed in the manner set forth in law.

Section 6484 states that, if any part of the deficiency for which a deficiency determination is made is due to negligence or intentional disregard of this part or authorized rules and regulations, a penalty of 10 per cent of the amount of the determination is added.

Section 6485 says that, if any part of the deficiency for which a deficiency determination is made is due to fraud or an intent to evade this part or authorized rules and regulations, a penalty of 25 percent of the amount of the determination is added.

Section 6485.1 provides that any purchaser of a vehicle, vessel, or aircraft who registers it outside the State of California for the purpose of evading the payment of taxes due under this part is liable for a penalty of 50 percent of any tax determined to be due on the sales price of the vehicle, vessel, or aircraft.

Section 6486 requires the department to give to the retailer or person storing, using, or consuming tangible personal property written notice of its determination. The notice is to be served in one of the three specified manners.

Section 6487 states that, except in the case of fraud, intent to evade this part or authorized rules and regulations, or failure to make a return, every notice of a deficiency determination can be served within three years after the last day of the calendar month following the quarterly period for which the amount is proposed to be determined or within three years after the return is filed, whichever period expires the later.

In the case of failure to make a return, every notice of determination must be served within eight years after the last day of the calendar month following the quarterly period for which the amount is proposed to be determined. For taxpayers filing returns on an annual basis, except in the case of fraud, intent to evade this part or authorized rules and regulations, or failure to make a return, every notice of a deficiency determination must be served within three years after the last day of the calendar month following the one-year period for which the amount is proposed to be determined.

Section 6487.05 explains that the period during which a deficiency determination may be served to a qualifying retailer is limited to three years after the last day of the calendar month following the quarterly period for which the amount is proposed to be determined. The term “qualifying retailer” is defined.

Section 6487.06 provides that the period during which a deficiency determination may be served to a qualifying purchaser is limited to three years after the last day of the calendar month following the quarterly period for which the amount is proposed to be determined. The term “qualifying purchaser” is defined.

If the department makes a determination that the purchaser’s failure to timely report or remit the taxes imposed by this part is due to reasonable cause or due to circumstances beyond the purchaser’s control, the purchaser may be relieved of any penalties imposed by this part. Any purchaser seeking relief from penalties imposed by this part is required to file a statement, signed under penalty of perjury, setting forth the facts that form the basis for the claim for relief.

Section 6487.07 allows a deficiency determination to be issued to a qualifying retailer only for those liabilities arising under this part for sales made. The term “qualifying retailer” is defined.

Section 6487.1 provides, in the case of a deficiency arising under this part during the lifetime of a decedent, a notice of deficiency determination is required to be served within four months after written request therefor, in the form required by the department, by the fiduciary of the estate or trust or by any other person liable for the tax or any portion thereof.

Section 6487.2 states that a notice of determination issued to an individual who was a general partner, as shown on the department’s records, and who, prior to the period covered by the determination, withdrew from the partnership, causing a change in ownership, and failed to notify the department, is to be served within four years after the last day of the calendar month following the quarterly period in which the change of ownership occurred.

An individual who was a general partner, as shown on the department’s records, who withdraws from a partnership without notifying the department of the change in ownership, is not liable for any unpaid, self-assessed liability of the partnership that becomes due at least three years after the last day of the calendar month following the quarterly period in which the change in ownership occurred.

Click here to read the full article in the California Globe

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: , , ,

Community colleges suddenly oppose plan to let them offer more bachelor’s degrees

September 6, 2026 By Mikhail Zinshteyn 1 Comment

California’s community colleges have been trying for several years to offer more bachelor’s degrees. This year, they put their hopes in two sweeping bills designed to help them do that. But lawmakers made massive, last-minute changes that prompted the state’s community colleges to now oppose the legislation.

The abrupt change of heart, spurred by new limits on how much the colleges could grow their bachelor’s programs, didn’t influence the outcomes of the bills, Senate Bill 960 by Sen. Christopher Cabaldon, a Democrat from Napa, and Assembly Bill 2694 by David Alvarez, also a Democrat from Chula Vista. Both passed this week by wide margins in the Legislature and now head to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk.

In recent years, Newsom vetoed bills that sought to expand the community colleges’ ability to issue more bachelor’s degrees. Still, Newsom’s office was involved in the revision of the latest bills, Cabaldon said in a Senate floor speech Monday.

“This is the first time that we’ve been able to engage in productive conversation between the houses and the executive branch,” he said.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Combined, the bills introduce new mechanisms for determining when colleges can create bachelor’s degrees and how many they can offer. The new approach has accountability metrics — colleges would be able to offer an additional two to 12 bachelor’s degrees starting in 2028 depending on their students’ certificate, degree and transfer completion rates. No college district could propose more than three new degrees per year and districts would need to prove that there’s a workforce need in their region to justify the creation of a bachelor’s degree. That’s a claim the state’s labor secretary would step in to validate if the California State University system objects, as has regularly occurred in the pitched policy disputes between the community colleges and the university.

The rules would apply to new degrees offered after 2028; existing community college bachelor’s degrees are grandfathered in. Today, 49 colleges either offer or will soon offer 66 bachelor’s degrees.

Cabaldon called the bills a breakthrough that would bring long-sought clarity.

“This will give us peace,” he said in a phone interview. “That doesn’t mean everybody’s going to agree all of the time, but it does mean the endless war and bickering and fighting and more and more legislation will come to an end.”

Community college leaders said the amendments are too last-minute, too unclear and too complicated, even if they appreciate the effort by the Legislature to wrangle the thorny issues.

“We’re being asked to … support a process that is not completely understood or vetted at the last minute, and so that’s just not great policymaking,” said Larry Galizio, president and CEO of the Community College League of California, an association representing community college presidents and board leaders.

Why bachelor’s degrees have been so contentious

The community colleges’ sudden shift is another turn in an effort that has produced near-constant turmoil.

Historically, the community colleges and Cal State have clashed over which bachelor’s degrees the colleges can teach. A 2021 state law was supposed to establish peace in the realm, but the colleges and Cal State regularly disagreed on a key concept — degree duplication. That law said the colleges couldn’t create bachelor’s degrees that are already offered by any Cal State or University of California campus, even if a community college is hundreds of miles from the nearest public university.

Colleges and several lawmakers called that an unfair arrangement, since many community college students can’t relocate to a distant university. In some instances, community colleges created those degrees anyway, over the objections of the Cal State system, EdSource reported.

Click here to read the full article in CalMatters

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , ,

California kills bill regulating Flock cameras even as public rage grows

September 4, 2026 By Khari Johnson Leave a Comment

Amid a growing nationwide backlash against license-plate cameras, California this week, for the fifth year running, failed to enact regulations on the technology.

A bill in the Legislature would have strengthened privacy protections on how license plate data is collected and shared. It also would have guarded against misuse of automated license plate readers by law enforcement officers.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

But after clearing the state senate the bill was stopped in the Assembly by majority leader Cecilia Aguilar-Curry on Monday, the final day the Legislature meets this year, before it could be introduced for a floor vote. It was one of a handful of bills that enjoyed strong support from lawmakers and looked poised to pass but died under mysterious circumstances.

All the bills California lawmakers have proposed since 2022 to reform or update regulations on license plate tracking by law enforcement agencies have failed to pass or become law. A similar bill passed last year but was vetoed by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

“It’s a really disappointing outcome at a time when there is bipartisan concern about this mass surveillance tool,” UC Berkeley Center for Law & Technology codirector Catherine Crump told CalMatters. Crump testified in support of the bill in July.

Lawmakers pushing for more regulation of the readers point to police misuse of the data they collect, including illegally using it to help federal immigration enforcers and stalking people.

But law enforcement agencies say many of the proposed regulations would cripple a tool they say has helped solve a wide range of crimes.

“We were concerned that this bill was going to limit the utility of ALPR data to solve crimes, find missing persons, exonerate innocent individuals, and so the fact that it did not pass, we’re glad for that,” California State Sheriff’s Association legislative director Cory Salzillo told CalMatters.

Mounting privacy concerns

Failure to pass the bill or even bring it up for a final vote comes at a time when opposition to license plate readers is growing in and beyond California. Police in Los Angeles and Redwood City and elected officials in California localities like El Cerrito and Campbell have ended contracts with the license plate reader company Flock Safety in recent weeks. Nationwide, more than 200 cities or law enforcement agencies ended license plate reader contracts in August, more than any other month since 2021, according to Secure Justice, a group led by Brian Hofer, a Bay Area privacy advocate who was held at gunpoint after a license plate reader incorrectly told sheriff’s deputies he was driving a stolen car.

License plate readers use cameras and artificial intelligence to log the plate numbers of passing cars. The readers are joined into networks used by law enforcement and information from them can be shared locally or nationwide. The tech can locate criminal suspects or missing persons, but it’s also been tied to police misconduct and immigration enforcement in violation of state law. More than 230 California police or sheriff’s departments currently use license plate readers, according to bill author Senator Sabrina Cervantes, a Democrat from Riverside.

“It’s unfortunate that Senate Bill 1013 did not get the chance to be voted on before the deadline passed, but I look forward to continuing to fight for the privacy rights of Californians next year,” she wrote in a statement shared with CalMatters.

Cervantes argued in July that protections in the bill are necessary to prevent unlawful data sharing, because license plate readers routinely collect information about the movement of millions of law-abiding Californians, and to stop other forms of police misconduct. Lawmakers say license plate readers were unlawfully used by law enforcement officers to stalk or harass private citizens in Los Angeles, Marin, Orange, Riverside, Sacramento, San Diego, and Shasta counties.

Enforcement agencies outside of California have put the technology to even more controversial use. Oakland activist Crystal Zermeño, who attended a protest against the technology outside City Hall last month, said she’s concerned about the tech being used to track women who get abortions or by federal authorities. After Cervantes’ bill died, she asked,  “How could we not as a state have the political will to do this in a moment when all of these [federal immigration enforcement] attacks are happening and we have limited defense?”

Click here to read the full article in CalMatters

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , ,

Chinese Propaganda, Foreign Influence Campaign Against U.S. AI Data Centers

September 4, 2026 By Staff Leave a Comment

California already has 331 data centers, with 54 more planned

Data centers are the gigantic physical facilities that house the servers, storage, networking, and cooling systems that store, process, and move digital information. They support cloud computing, streaming, e-commerce, banking, AI, remote work, and most internet services. 

Data centers make online shopping possible, they make gaming and streaming possible, they keep our apps working, they make remote work possible, and they power Google.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

With Amazon building so many massive distribution centers across the country, it’s hard to tell if these gargantuan structures belong to Amazon, or if they are data centers – many of which have been in our communities for years.

The recent race to build more facilities is being driven in large part by Artificial Intelligence, but mainstream media and social media are fomenting distrust. And they have help.

China must be delighted with Americans’ opposition to data centers; it means their disinformation campaign is working.

OpenAI reported in June 2026 that it banned clusters of ChatGPT accounts likely originating in China (a private company working for provincial government clients), Politico reported.

Chinese state outlets CGTN, China Daily, Global Times, published English-language pieces and videos citing US electricity-price spikes and energy demand from data centers, sometimes using satellite imagery of specific U.S. sites. An Alethea analysis recorded hundreds of such mentions from Chinese, Russian, and Iranian state media in the first half of 2026, treating the issue as a “domestic fracture point.” Think-tank reports additionally link Neville Roy Singham’s Shanghai-based nonprofit network and the Party for Socialism and Liberation to on-the-ground organizing that contributed to moratoria or blocked projects totaling billions of dollars. These claims have prompted congressional letters requesting FBI investigation, Fox News reported. 

In mid-August, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) urged leading AI CEOs to pause AI development, warning that lawmakers will step in if no action is taken, Axios reported.

A report, “Foreign Influence in the Campaign against American AI,” by the Bitcoin Policy Institute think tank, alleges that there are “three vectors of foreign influence converging on the push to block U.S. AI data center construction.”

“Report documents CCP state media, a congressional-investigated nonprofit network, and foreign-billionaire dark money converging on the push to halt American AI data center construction, tracing a trail from Beijing’s state media apparatus through a CCP-aligned nonprofit network to foreign-billionaire dark money tied to the push for a federal moratorium on AI data centers.”

Fox reported on March 25, amid campaigns by Singham organizations against U.S. technology firms, Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez introduced the “AI Data Center Moratorium Act.” Weeks later, on April 29, Sanders hosted a Capitol Hill event titled “The Existential Threat of AI.”

According to the Bitcoin Policy Institute report, at that event, “Two of the four panelists were Chinese government affiliates and veteran PRC media voices, including Xue Lan, a Counsellor of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China, who called the U.S.-China AI race “an inaccurate narrative.” The event was held one month after Sanders introduced the moratorium legislation.”

According to the report, the two Chinese government panelists at that the Bernie Sanders event were Zeng Yi, founding dean of the Beijing Institute of AI Safety and Governance, and Xue Lan, a counselor of China’s State Council and chair of China’s National AI Governance Committee.

U.S. Sen. Dave McCormick (R-PA) says America needs to win the AI race, but has concerns about China’s interference.

On Aug. 27, McCormick shared a pair of reports on social media detailing an investigation led by Republicans into anti-data-center non-profits over their ties to China, Just the News reported.

“China knows the AI race will shape the future,” McCormick said. “Now we’re learning Chinese money may be funding groups working to stop the data centers America needs to compete and meet our growing demand for AI.”

“We cannot let the CCP sabotage American AI dominance from inside our own borders,” he added.

McCormick argued that China is trying to “manipulate America’s debate over AI and energy” because they want to see the United States lose.

California already has 331 data centers, with 54 more planned. California places 3rd among U.S. states by number of data centers, behind Virginia and Texas, according to Pew Research. Virginia has 685 data centers, and Texas has 466.  

Click here to read the full article in the California Globe

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: , ,

Legislature passes slew of bills as end of session approaches

September 3, 2026 By Madeline Shannon 1 Comment

The California Legislature met Sunday afternoon in a rare weekend session to pass bills still waiting for a vote, only one day before the deadline.

The final day of the 2026 session is Monday, and lawmakers were expected to be back on the floor during late morning.

On Sunday, several bills – including those regulating education, immigration, election security, insurance and competitive business practices – passed the Senate.

One bill, Senate Bill 259, authored by Sen. Aisha Wahab, D-Fremont, would create a new misdemeanor for anyone tasked with the care of vote-by-mail ballots if they interfere with the ballot delivery to a voter. The bill would also apply to anyone in charge of vote-by-mail ballots, who oversees someone working under them for ballot delivery or a ballot’s return to local elections officials, according to a legislative analysis.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

“This bill largely is to defend the vote,” Wahab said on the Senate floor on Sunday afternoon.

“SB 259 is a response to the federal and local actors that have interfered with elections by undermining or obstructing the vote-by-mail process,” said Wahab, who was recently elected to serve the rest of former U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell’s term in Congress. Swalwell, a Democrat, resigned from the U.S. House and the California gubernatorial race amid allegations of sexual assault and harassment. Swalwell has denied any wrongdoing.

Earlier this year, Wahab said on the floor, the federal government issued a new rule that aimed to rewrite the rules of federal elections, directing the U.S. Postal Service to only deliver vote-by-mail ballots to voters on a Postal Service-managed list.

“Federal courts have deemed this executive order unconstitutional, and warned that implementation will cause confusion and disenfranchise eligible voters,” Wahab said. “Regardless of party affiliation, our democracy is strongest when every eligible voter can cast a ballot freely, securely and with confidence that it will be counted.”

Republican opposition focused on the California Legislature’s lack of jurisdiction over activities of the U.S. Postal Service.

“Once again, we’re trying to do something here in the Legislature that’s not within our authority,” Sen. Tony Strickland, R-Huntington Beach, said on the Senate floor. “The mail system is a federal issue. In my understanding, the Supreme Court actually ruled against a provision like this from happening, and I believe the federal Supreme Court supersedes the California state Legislature when it comes to federal mail rules.”

Click here to read the full article in the Center Square

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: ,

Why a bill to juice condo construction died even though California lawmakers voted for it

September 3, 2026 By Ben Christopher 1 Comment

A bill that supporters hoped would kickstart California’s moribund condo industry and boost the scarce number of entry-level homeownership opportunities, died under mysterious circumstances at the stroke of midnight on Tuesday after failing to get a final vote before the end of the legislative session.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Assembly Bill 1903 by Oakland Democratic lawmaker Buffy Wicks would have changed the way that disputes between homeowners and builders over purportedly shoddy construction are resolved in a way the bill’s author hoped would result in fewer defect lawsuits and less developer skittishness around building condos. .

Backed by real estate interests, “Yes In My Backyard” advocates and a bevy of city governments, the bill sailed through the Senate without objection on Monday after 11:15 p.m.

But in a legislative mystery with weighty implications for California’s dysfunctional housing market, it never made its way back to the Assembly. At midnight, the legislative session officially came to a close. The bill had already passed the Assembly the prior week. But lacking an obligatory “concurrence” vote needed to lock in the final amendments, the bill died quietly without facing a single “no” vote in either chamber.

In a statement released on Tuesday afternoon, Wicks said that she was “incredibly disappointed and frustrated” that the bill “was ultimately held by the Senate.”

“We put hundreds of hours, months of negotiations, and endless stakeholders engagement and coalition building,” she said. “Ultimately I had a bill Friday morning that I truly believe would have unlocked condo construction to serve our working class families desperate for homeownership opportunities.”

A spokesperson for Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón, a Santa Barbara Democrat, did not respond to a request for comment.

The bill was closely watched by pro-development advocates, who championed it as a key to unlocking the type of naturally affordable for-sale construction that the state so desperately needs.

But the bill had been opposed throughout the year by the politically powerful Consumer Attorneys of California, a lobbying group representing civil trial lawyers, along with many homeowners associations. Both argued that the bill would make it unduly hard for homeowners to take irresponsible builders to court over legitimately defective construction.

Those groups stopped fighting the bill when Wicks agreed to water it down over the weekend. Stripping out language that would have specified the types of defects ripe for litigation and placed new restrictions on how defects can be identified, the final bill simply required homeowners to clearly document the defects before filing suit, to give the builder a chance to repair them first and, if those repairs were made complete, to absolve the builder of future liability.

Click here to read the full article in CalMatters

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: , ,

California lawmakers race to pass bills before midnight deadline

September 2, 2026 By Ashley Zavala, Daniel Macht 2 Comments

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California lawmakers on Monday are facing a midnight deadline to pass new laws as the state’s legislative session comes to an end, with a few exceptions scheduled for votes on Tuesday morning.

A massive last-minute spending bill and a separate proposal related to wildfire liability will be voted on Tuesday morning.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Among the proposed laws being tracked:

  • AB 1896 would ban federal immigration officers from working as California state employees.
  • SB 493 would allow the governor to declare a state of emergency during international conflicts involving the federal government, enabling the state attorney general to crack down on price gouging. The bill specifically targets the oil industry.
  • Two proposals, AB 2383 and SB 886, aim to regulate data centers by creating new rules for their electricity use. These bills would also require the California Public Utilities Commission to set special rates for data centers to ensure costs are not shifted to general electricity customers.

These are just a few of the hundreds of bills California lawmakers have been working on this year.

Click here to read the full article at KCRA

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: , ,

Gavin Newsom still doesn’t understand the limits of his power

September 1, 2026 By Daniel Kolkey Leave a Comment

After 7 1/2 years as governor, Gavin Newsom still does not understand the scope and limits of his gubernatorial powers.

On July 13, California Attorney General Rob Bonta sued to block Paramount Skydance’s acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery. On August 1, The Wall Street Journal reported that Governor Newsom had expressed his view that blocking the deal would adversely impact employment in California and had encouraged the California Attorney General Bonta to reach a compromise out of court.

But according to the Journal, “Bonta has been adamant that he will fight the deal in court unless Paramount agrees to structural remedies,” and recently cancelled a meeting with Paramount scheduled for August 24 to discuss settlement.

But as governor, Newsom need not complain about the suit and act as an interested observer. Instead, he could have expressly directed the Attorney General not to bring the case, and subsequent to the suit, he could have directed him to settle it and specified the terms upon which settlement should be reached.

Article V of the California Constitution provides that “[t]he supreme executive power of this State is vested in the Governor,” and more specifically, it provides that “[s]ubject to the powers and duties of the Governor, the Attorney General shall be the chief law officer of the State.” This means that the Governor could have directed the Attorney General not to bring suit or the terms for settling it.

This reading of the state Constitution is not simply supported by its plain language, but is confirmed by the California Supreme Court’s decision in People ex rel. Deukmejian v. Brown. In that case, the California Supreme Court explained that “if a conflict between the Governor and the Attorney General develops over the faithful execution of the laws of this state, the Governor retains the ‘supreme executive power’ to determine the public interest; the Attorney General may act only ‘subject to the powers’ of the Governor.” Thus, Governor Newsom could have directed the Attorney General not to bring suit or to limit the remedies sought in the suit.

But he didn’t. He preferred leaking his views instead of leading.

His misunderstanding of his powers is not a new problem either. The California Constitution also provides, “The Governor shall see that the law is faithfully executed.” But he has failed to comply with that obligation in connection with the enforcement of the death penalty.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Specifically, despite the fact that as recently as 2016, California voters rejected a ballot measure that would have repealed the death penalty, and instead approved Proposition 66, which retained the death penalty, Newsom issued an executive order within his first three months of taking office which has effectively become an eight-year “moratorium on the death penalty … in the form of a reprieve.”

A blanket moratorium on enforcing the death penalty on all criminal defendants, without regard to the strength of the evidence in any particular case or the trauma experienced by the victims, hardly satisfies the governor’s constitutional obligation to see that “the law is faithfully executed,” in this case, a death penalty law, enacted by the People through their initiative power, and upheld by the California Supreme Court.

Yes, the governor found a legal loophole since he has the authority to grant a reprieve under the California Constitution.   But this is ordinarily done on an individual basis. Yet, in this case, Newsom issued a reprieve to “all people sentenced to death in California,” regardless of the horrendous circumstances of any particular murder, the lost lives of innocent victims, or the California Supreme Court’s affirmance of the death penalty verdict in those cases.

Click here to read the full article in the OC Register

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: , ,

What to know about the new California privacy law that became a flashpoint over free speech

August 31, 2026 By Lynn La Leave a Comment

Starting next year, Californians who provide legal aid, counseling or other types of assistance to immigrants will be eligible for a privacy program that keeps their addresses confidential and out of public records.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Gov. Gavin Newsom approved this latest expansion of California’s Safe at Home program amid concern among Democratic legislators of a rise in reported harassment and threats against immigrants and immigration advocates.

Some Republican lawmakers fiercely opposed the measure, arguing that it stifles constitutional protections of a free press. The dispute came to a head last week in a verbal altercation involving Terry Schanz, the chief of staff of Democratic Assemblymember Tina McKinnor, and Nick Shirley, a conservative social media influencer and outspoken critic of the new law.

In a recording distributed widely on social media, Schanz confronted Shirley outside of the state Capitol and accused Shirley of having a small penis. Officials from the Assembly would not comment on whether Schanz could face discipline over the exchange.

The law goes into effect Oct. 1, 2027. Here’s what you need to know:

What does the privacy law do?

Under the new law — Assembly Bill 2624 — immigration support services providers, employees and volunteers can enroll in the state’s Safe at Home Program. The program lets participants, and family members in their households, keep their home addresses confidential and out of public records by providing an alternative mailing address through the California secretary of state. Participants can also vote confidentially.

The law also prohibits a “person, business, or association” from knowingly posting on the internet the address, image or personal information of program participants (as well as their spouse or child) with the intent to “incite a third person to cause imminent great bodily harm to those individuals.”

A person found in violation of the law could be fined $4,000 in civil damages.

Click here to read the full article in CalMatters

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: , ,

Legislature passes bill making it easier for Californians to sue ICE agents

August 29, 2026 By Sara DiNatale, Bob Egelko 1 Comment

Legislation that makes it easier for Californians to sue federal officers, including immigration agents, is heading to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk after the Senate overwhelmingly passed it Thursday.

The bill, authored by Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, passed the Senate in a 28-10 vote after passing 54-17 in the Assembly on Tuesday. Wiener told the Senate the bill creates a pathway for residents to sue any federal, state or local official “who violates their constitutional rights.”

“The only way to end ICE’s violent, lawless behavior is accountability,” Wiener said following the vote. “Today, the California Legislature stood up to hold them accountable.”

Wiener has said the bill would allow people harmed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to file a lawsuit over their mistreatment by closing loopholes that made it difficult to sue federal law enforcement in California state courts. Allegations could now include freedom of speech violations, unlawful searches, racial profiling — or wrongful death.

Wiener, who is now running for a congressional seat, first introduced Senate Bill 747, also known as the No Kings Act, in September 2025. But attention on the bill picked up earlier this year in the wake of the violent confrontations in Minnesota, where ICE agents shot and killed 37-year–old Alex Pretti and 37-year-old Renee Good.

“Today’s vote means Californians harmed by a federal agent’s misconduct are one step closer to a real day in court,” Cameron Kistler with nonprofit Protect Democracy said in a statement. “We urge Governor Newsom to sign it into law without delay.”

If signed into law by Newsom, the bill will make California the fifth state this year to give residents a remedy when federal law enforcement violates their constitutional rights, according to Protect Democracy, which co-sponsored the bill. The other states are New York, Vermont, Connecticut and Massachusetts.

Amendments made to the bill clarify that it does not apply to cities, counties or public entities but, rather, to individuals, Wiener told senators Thursday. He said it does not expand liabilities beyond what federal law already permits.

Despite criticism from Republicans that the legislation goes outside the state’s jurisdiction, Erwin Chemerinsky, the law school dean at UC Berkeley and an expert in constitutional law, told the Chronicle it’s likely that California will be able to enforce a law allowing lawsuits to be filed against federal agents in state court over violations of constitutional rights.

“I do not believe that the supremacy clause automatically protects federal officers from state tort or criminal liability,” Chemerinsky said, referring to the section of the U.S. Constitution that declares federal law to be the supreme law of the land, overriding any conflicting state laws.

Click here to read the full article in the SF Chronicle

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , ,