2025 CA Legislation

As of April 2, 2025, Secure Justice has taken formal positions on the following bills. We are actively monitoring additional legislation for potential support or opposition, as negotiations and discussions regarding proposed amendments are still in progress.

AB 45 (Bauer-Kahan)

This bill strengthens privacy protections for individuals seeking reproductive health care by prohibiting the collection, use, sale, sharing, or retention of personal information—including through geofencing—of anyone located at or near a family planning center, except as needed to provide requested goods or services. It allows civil actions against violators, expands liability to a broader range of entities, and introduces new enforcement mechanisms, including civil penalties enforced by the Attorney General. It also extends confidentiality protections to research records related to health care services, particularly against out-of-state legal actions targeting abortion access, and allows prescription labels for abortion medications to list the health care practice instead of the individual prescriber, upon request.

AB 49 (Muratsuchi, Ortega)

This bill strengthens protections for students and families by prohibiting school officials from allowing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to enter school grounds without valid identification, a written statement of purpose, a signed judicial warrant, and approval from the appropriate school authority. If these conditions are met, access must still be limited to areas without students present. It builds on existing law that restricts the collection of citizenship or immigration information and mandates reporting of immigration-related law enforcement requests, thereby creating a state-mandated local program.

AB 85 (Essayli) OPPOSED

This bill would require law enforcement officials to cooperate with immigration authorities by detaining and transferring individuals, and providing release information, if the person has been convicted of any felony—removing current limitations based on specific serious or violent crimes.

AB 321 (Schultz)

This bill expands judicial discretion by allowing a crime punishable as either a felony or misdemeanor to be classified as a misdemeanor at any time the court determines it to be so, rather than only at specific procedural stages as under existing law.

AB 364 (DeMaio)

This bill, the Stop Foreign Governments from Accessing Californians’ Sensitive Personal Information Act, would require businesses to inform consumers if their personal information will be stored outside the U.S. and obtain explicit consent before doing so. It would also prohibit storing sensitive data—such as health, financial, or geolocation information—with foreign governments or entities they control, expanding protections under the California Consumer Privacy Act and the California Privacy Rights Act.

AB 419 (Connolly)

This bill would require local educational agencies to post specified information about immigration enforcement in their administrative buildings and on their websites, including each schoolsite’s website, building on existing laws that protect students and families from immigration-related data collection and affirm the right to a free public education regardless of immigration status.

AB 421 (Solache)

This bill would prohibit California law enforcement from sharing information with immigration authorities about enforcement actions occurring or planned within one mile of childcare facilities, places of worship, hospitals, or medical offices, expanding the protections under the California Values Act. By imposing new restrictions and duties, the bill would create a state-mandated local program.

AB 475 (Wilson)

This bill would end the requirement that all able-bodied inmates work, instead mandating that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) establish a voluntary work program with rules, regulations, and wages for inmate work assignments. Starting January 1, 2027, CDCR could no longer require incarcerated individuals to work, except under specified circumstances. Local governments would also be required to set compensation for jail work programs by ordinance, creating a state-mandated local program.

AB 690 (Schultz)

Starting January 1, 2027, this bill would require counties and courts contracting for indigent defense services to follow new guidelines, including compliance with State Public Defender standards, banning flat fee or per case compensation contracts, and ensuring contracts support adequate resources and time for competent representation. Counties must also submit all contracts to the Office of the State Public Defender every two years and include hourly rates or their equivalents in the agreements.

AB 800 (Ortega)

This bill would require the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to ensure that all food sold in prison vending machines is priced comparably to the average market retail price in the surrounding community. It would also direct the department to consider research on the health impacts of junk food and promote the availability of affordable, fresh, and nutritious options, including sourcing from local farmers and producers.

AB 991 (Essayli) OPPOSED

This bill would exclude firearm-related enhancements from the requirement that courts dismiss enhancements in the furtherance of justice but would still allow courts to dismiss such enhancements under their general authority to dismiss actions.

AB 1036 (Schultz)

This bill would expand access to discovery materials in postconviction proceedings to include all felony cases with sentences of one year or more, removing the requirement to first attempt retrieval from trial counsel. It broadens the definition of “discovery materials” to include any evidence from involved prosecutors that could negate guilt or reduce a sentence, and requires trial counsel, starting July 1, 2026, to retain digital color copies of all case files for such convictions.

AB 1221 (Bryan)

This bill would require employers, including public employers, to give workers at least 30 days' written notice before introducing a workplace surveillance tool, detailing the data collected, its purpose, and justification. It prohibits the use of certain surveillance technologies, such as those using facial, gait, or emotion recognition, and restricts the transfer of worker data to third parties unless specific conditions are met. The Labor Commissioner would enforce the bill, and employees or public prosecutors could pursue legal action, with employers facing a $500 penalty per violation.

AB 1261 (Bonta)

This bill would require the State Department of Social Services to contract with qualified nonprofit legal services organizations or public defenders to appoint counsel for unaccompanied undocumented minors in the custody of the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement and present in California, or residing with a family member or sponsor in the state.

AB 1331 (Elhawary)

This bill would restrict the use of workplace surveillance tools by employers, prohibiting monitoring in private, off-duty areas and requiring such tools to be disabled during off-duty hours. Employers who violate these provisions would face a $500 civil penalty per affected employee, and enforcement could be pursued by employees or public prosecutors.

AB 1355 (Ward)

This bill would prohibit covered entities from collecting or using an individual's location information unless it is necessary to provide requested goods or services and the individual has explicitly opted in. It requires clear notices at the point of data collection, a detailed location privacy policy, and restricts how location data can be used or shared. Violations may result in damages and legal action by the Attorney General or public prosecutors. The bill also bans state and local agencies from monetizing location information.

AB 1337 (Ward)

This bill would expand the Information Practices Act of 1977 by applying its privacy protections to local agencies, removing their current exemption, and aligning agency rules with state administrative guidelines. It would restrict the use of personal information to its original purpose unless required by law, revise conditions under which personal data may be disclosed, and make both negligent and intentional violations grounds for disciplinary action. The bill would also make wrongful disclosure of sensitive medical information a misdemeanor regardless of whether it causes harm, thereby creating a state-mandated local program.

AB 1388 (Bryan)

This bill would prohibit law enforcement agencies from including confidentiality clauses in settlement agreements with peace officers who have pending misconduct complaints, ensuring that such misconduct cannot be kept secret through settlement terms.

SB 48 (Gonzalez)

This bill would prohibit school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools from allowing immigration authorities access to schoolsites, questioning students, or conducting searches without a valid judicial warrant or court order. If such a warrant is presented, school personnel must verify identification, retain documentation, and notify administrators before granting access. Without a warrant, access must be denied, and the denial documented. The bill also bars sharing any student, family, or staff information with immigration authorities without a court order and requires the Attorney General to publish model policies to help schools comply, creating a state-mandated local program.

SB 50 (Ashby)

This bill would require account managers to disable or terminate a perpetrator’s access to connected devices or accounts within two days of receiving a valid device protection request from a survivor, expanding protections for abuse victims. It outlines procedures for submitting such requests, mandates confidentiality, and allows enforcement through civil penalties or injunctions. The bill also expands the definition of disturbing the peace to include misuse of internet-connected devices and creates a state-mandated local program by extending perjury liability through affidavit use in protection requests.

SB 59 (Wiener)

This bill expands confidentiality protections for all court petitions related to changes in gender, sex identifier, or name to align with gender identity, applying these safeguards regardless of the petitioner’s age and retroactively to previously filed cases. It requires courts to ensure these records are not publicly disclosed, including online, and mandates corrective action if confidentiality is breached. Beginning six months after the bill's enactment, individuals may seek legal remedies, including damages and attorney’s fees, for violations. The bill also allows sealing of records without a public hearing if certain criteria are met.

SB 81 (Arreguin)

This bill expands the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA) by including immigration status and place of birth within the definition of “medical information” and prohibiting its disclosure for immigration enforcement without patient authorization or a valid judicial warrant. It also requires health care providers and entities to adopt procedures to prevent unauthorized access by immigration authorities, notify management of enforcement requests, and train staff accordingly. Violations would expand the scope of existing crimes, creating a state-mandated local program.

SB 281 (Perez)

This bill would require courts to provide a verbatim advisement to noncitizen defendants that a conviction may result in deportation, exclusion from admission, or denial of naturalization, and clarifies the language to explicitly state these potential immigration consequences.

SB 361 (Becker)

This bill would require data brokers to provide additional information to the California Privacy Protection Agency when registering, including whether they collect sensitive personal data such as login credentials, government ID numbers, citizenship status, union membership, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and biometric data, expanding transparency under the California Consumer Privacy Act and California Privacy Rights Act.

SB 446 (Hurtado)

This bill would require businesses or individuals to notify affected California residents of a data breach within 30 days of discovering it, while still allowing limited delays for law enforcement needs or system restoration. It would also require notification to the Attorney General, when more than 500 residents are affected, to be submitted within 15 days of discovering the breach.

SB 497 (Wiener)

This bill strengthens protections for individuals seeking gender-affirming health or mental health care by prohibiting California health providers, insurers, and contractors from sharing related medical information in response to foreign subpoenas or investigations based on another state’s laws that criminalize or penalize such care. It also bars state and local agencies from sharing data from the CURES prescription monitoring system for out-of-state investigations related to legally protected health care. The bill establishes new misdemeanor offenses for unauthorized access or disclosure of CURES data, creating a state-mandated local program.

SB 554 (Jones) OPPOSED

This bill revises the California Values Act by requiring law enforcement agencies to carry out certain exceptions to restrictions on immigration enforcement cooperation and clarifies that sharing release date information is permitted. It prohibits local agencies from creating stricter limits on cooperation than those set by state law and invalidates any conflicting local ordinances enacted before January 1, 2026.

SB 635 (Durazo)

This bill strengthens protections for sidewalk vendors and operators of compact mobile food operations by prohibiting local authorities and enforcement agencies from collecting or sharing personally identifiable information, immigration or citizenship status, or criminal history without a subpoena or judicial warrant. It bans requiring fingerprints, background checks, or contracting enforcement to private entities, and mandates the destruction of previously collected criminal history data by March 1, 2026. It also requires permit applications to accept alternative forms of ID and subjects all related enforcement activities to the California Values Act.

SB 734 (Caballero) OPPOSED

This bill prohibits using court findings from cases brought under the California Racial Justice Act of 2020 as the sole basis for punitive action, denial of promotion, or certification revocation against public safety officers, and bars introducing such findings in administrative appeals. It also requires attorneys to notify the employing law enforcement agency if a motion under the Racial Justice Act is based in whole or in part on an officer’s conduct.