Following six weeks of testimony, an Alameda County judge must now decide whether the groups’ promotion of the treatment is protected under the First Amendment, or whether it amounts to false advertising under state consumer protection laws.

The lawsuit, filed by Attorney General Rob Bonta in 2023, targets Heartbeat International, a national anti-abortion organization, and RealOptions Obria, a network of Northern California anti-abortion clinics. Both groups promote a hormone-based regimen they claim can stop a medication abortion already in progress.

State attorneys argue the treatment lacks scientific support and could put patients at risk. They are asking for $20 million in penalties under California’s unfair competition and false advertising statutes.

The defendants maintain that thousands of women have gone on to deliver healthy babies after using their services, and that discussing the treatment is a form of protected expression tied to their religious beliefs. Heartbeat International operates the Abortion Pill Rescue Network, a hotline that connects patients with providers willing to administer high doses of progesterone in an effort to counter the effects of mifepristone, the first drug used in a medication abortion. The organization has more than 90 affiliated sites across California, including RealOptions locations.

Deputy Attorney General Erica Connolly told the court the groups exploit women during a vulnerable moment.

“Those individuals need accurate information, but accurate information is not what the defendants provide,” Connolly said. “Instead, they tout false hope.”

Attorneys for the anti-abortion groups counter that because the reversal services are offered free of charge, false advertising claims don’t apply. Defense attorney Paul Jonna argued the state has failed to show that anyone was actually harmed, describing the lawsuit as “an ideological campaign disguised as consumer fraud prosecution.”

A federal appeals court reached a similar conclusion in a comparable case out of New York, ruling that the reversal claims did not qualify as commercial speech and therefore fell outside the reach of that state’s advertising laws.

Understanding the treatment in dispute

A typical medication abortion involves two drugs — mifepristone, which blocks the hormone progesterone that sustains pregnancy, followed 24 to 48 hours later by misoprostol, which triggers contractions that empty the uterus, similar to a miscarriage. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, medication abortions now account for roughly two-thirds of all abortions performed nationally.

Heartbeat International claims that administering large doses of progesterone after mifepristone but before misoprostol can reverse the abortion process. The organization reports more than 8,000 continued pregnancies nationwide through this method, citing a success rate between 64% and 68%.

Jonna said several women who testified for the defense described feeling grateful for the intervention, not deceived, and noted that no formal consumer complaints have ever been filed against either organization.

But the state contends the treatment’s promoters are making definitive medical claims without solid scientific backing. The handful of studies commonly cited to support “abortion pill reversal” have been widely discredited by major medical organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the New England Journal of Medicine, both of which say the research is deeply flawed.

“They are welcome to talk about it,” Connolly said. “They’re just not allowed to lie about it.”

Research shows that completing both steps of a medication abortion is effective 95% to 98% of the time. Women who take only the first pill and stop there will still carry the pregnancy to term about half the time — without any additional intervention.

A pattern of legal battles over crisis pregnancy centers

RealOptions is what’s known as a crisis pregnancy center — typically a faith-based organization that opposes abortion and may offer services such as ultrasounds or pregnancy testing. These centers vastly outnumber abortion providers in California, by a ratio of more than five to one.

Critics argue the centers often mislead women seeking abortion care, while supporters say they provide a needed option for those facing unplanned pregnancies.

California has long struggled to rein in these centers through legislation. In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a state law that would have required such centers to inform clients about abortion and contraception options, and to disclose when a facility was not licensed to provide medical care. The justices ruled the law violated free speech protections under the First Amendment.

Legal scholar Mary Ziegler, who has no connection to the current case, says the outcome will largely depend on how the court classifies the speech in question.

“Is it political and religious speech? Is it commercial speech, which enjoys less protection? Is it just conduct?” Ziegler said, noting that crisis pregnancy centers occupy a murky legal space — presenting themselves as advocacy groups while sometimes functioning like medical clinics.

In the New York case, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the anti-abortion defendants, ruling that statements about “abortion pill reversal” were constitutionally protected because they stemmed from religious and moral conviction.

Meanwhile, a Kansas state court judge recently struck down several abortion restrictions, including a requirement that providers inform patients about the reversal treatment, ruling that the mandate infringed on patients’ bodily autonomy by forcing them to hear “unproven” medical claims.

Ziegler said that even if California ultimately loses this case, reproductive rights advocates may still view it as a meaningful step forward.

“If the world we live in says, you know, you have a protected right to tell patients things that are potentially dangerous to them, then that’s going to raise public concerns anyway,” she said.

Judge Patrick McKinney is expected to issue a ruling within the next three months.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Moves to Stop Anti-Abortion Groups From Promoting Unproven ‘Reversal’ Treatment appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

A federal judge has already put the deal on hold once, and the Writers Guild of America is pursuing a parallel lawsuit on a similar timeline. Bonta, leading a coalition of a dozen states, contends that merging two of Hollywood’s five major studios with two of its five major cable programmers would give the combined company control over roughly a third of the nation’s theatrical film and basic cable business.

That’s a case worth watching closely for Southern Californians, given how deeply the entertainment industry is woven into the region’s economy and identity. But history suggests that megadeals of this size rarely conclude with a tidy courtroom knockout. More often, they end in settlements, scaled-back court orders, or restructured proposals. Paramount has already demonstrated a willingness to accept delay after delay rather than abandon the merger outright.

That raises an important question: if some version of this deal ultimately survives, what should California require in return?

The remedies typically discussed in antitrust fights — forced divestitures, licensing restrictions, content firewalls — are the usual playbook. But they can be difficult to enforce and are often vulnerable to further litigation. One option that hasn’t received nearly enough attention is reshaping how the merged company is governed from the inside, specifically through its board of directors.

Should this case end in a settlement, a consent decree, or a court-approved version of the merger, California should push for the resulting company’s board to include labor representatives and public-interest voices with genuine voting power — not token advisory roles. That means seats for union members who write, produce and support this programming, along with representatives who can advocate for California audiences, readers and communities that lose access to independent journalism every time the media industry consolidates further.

The reasoning is straightforward. When one company dominates a market, the damage isn’t limited to higher prices. It can also mean lower wages, worse working conditions, and a narrowing of the viewpoints that reach the public, simply because there are fewer employers and outlets to turn to. These consequences don’t always show up in a standard antitrust analysis, but they are precisely the harms Bonta’s legal team has already flagged. His office’s court filings have raised concerns about newsroom cutbacks and the potential fallout for CNN and CBS News specifically.

Giving workers and the public actual voting power on the board would create an ongoing check on decisions about layoffs, programming choices and the range of stories being told — rather than a temporary condition that disappears once regulators move on to the next case.

This approach would also be less heavy-handed than the usual remedies. A full-scale divestiture can be a blunt tool that sometimes just creates smaller monopolies instead of solving the underlying problem. Embedding labor and public-interest representation directly into company governance allows for whatever legitimate business efficiencies a merger might create, while ensuring the people most vulnerable to its downsides have a lasting say in what happens next. Similar stakeholder governance models have already been used successfully by other companies both in the U.S. and internationally.

This isn’t a conventional fix for an antitrust case, but the risks posed by this merger aren’t conventional either. Combining two major news organizations with a large share of the country’s remaining scripted television market would reshape the media landscape well beyond the lifespan of any single court ruling.

Bonta has built credibility by taking this fight to court instead of settling for token concessions. Whatever comes next — a courtroom victory, a negotiated settlement, or a revised deal that lands back on his desk — he should keep governance reform on the table as a serious option.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Antitrust Concerns Loom Over Paramount-Warner Bros. Merger as California Weighs Regulatory Response appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Attorney General Rob Bonta announced Wednesday that California has joined 21 other states in filing two separate lawsuits challenging the administration’s overhaul of endangered species protections. The legal action adds to a growing list of dozens of lawsuits California has brought against the administration’s broader push to loosen federal regulations.

The lawsuits take aim at revisions to the landmark conservation law, which was signed by Republican President Richard Nixon — himself a Californian — in 1973.

“Caring for our wildlife and our environment is part of caring for our future, yet President Trump seems to care only for himself and his industry friends,” Bonta said in a statement. “The Trump Administration has continuously sought to put our ecosystems in danger, which is why we continue to take them to court.”

At the heart of the dispute is a rule change finalized in July that eliminates a long-standing definition making it illegal to damage or destroy habitat that endangered species depend on for shelter, food and breeding. Critics say the rollback effectively clears the way for mining, logging and other development in areas once considered off-limits.

The Interior Department has defended the change, saying in a statement that it “will end years of federal overreach” and deliver “long overdue financial and regulatory relief to citizens who faced unpredictable delays and unnecessary costs” tied to what officials described as overly broad interpretations of the law.

But the coalition of attorneys general characterized the shift differently in its federal court filing, calling it “a reversal of staggering proportions.”

Beyond the habitat definition, the administration’s changes also make it easier for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to sidestep designating “critical habitat” — a label that restricts federal and federally permitted development. Additionally, the revisions do away with a rule that automatically extended protections to species listed as threatened, meaning wildlife officials must now craft individualized protection plans for each newly listed species.

That added workload comes as the agency grapples with steep staffing losses. According to the Center for Biological Diversity, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has lost more than a third of its workforce since 2024, even as roughly 400 species await decisions on federal protection. Only three species have been granted protections under the current administration, said Noah Greenwald, the organization’s endangered species co-director.

Conservation groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity and Earthjustice, have already filed their own legal challenges against the rule changes. But Greenwald said having state attorneys general enter the fight carries added weight.

“It really signals that the chief legal officer of almost half the states don’t agree with these changes,” he said. “To have the states weigh in is really powerful.”

The stakes are particularly high for California, which trails only Hawaii in the number of threatened and endangered species found within its borders, according to the attorney general’s office.

California does have its own endangered species law, first passed in 1970 and substantially rewritten in the 1980s. But that state law has notable gaps. At least 140 species currently protected under the federal Endangered Species Act have no corresponding protection under California’s version, according to state wildlife officials. A spokesperson for Bonta’s office told CalMatters that those species “could potentially obtain protections” under state law, but the process to add them can take considerable time. The federal law also covers migratory species that pass through multiple states, something California’s law cannot fully replicate on its own.

There’s a deeper legal wrinkle as well. Unlike its federal counterpart, California’s Endangered Species Act does not explicitly treat habitat destruction as a protected concern, according to Eric Biber, a professor at UC Berkeley School of Law — though he noted there remains some legal debate over how the state law should be interpreted. That ambiguity raises questions about whether California’s law alone can compensate for the habitat protections stripped away at the federal level.

Habitat loss remains the leading threat to most endangered species nationwide, according to a Stanford Law School analysis. Biber said the rollback fits into a broader pattern by the Trump administration, pointing to recent efforts to weaken wetland protections as well.

“This is one further step in this administration’s efforts to roll back protections for habitat for endangered species,” he said.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Joins Lawsuit Challenging Trump Administration Rollback of Endangered Species Protections appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Attorney General Rob Bonta announced Wednesday that California, along with a coalition of Democratic-led states, has filed suit in federal court in Massachusetts to block newly finalized U.S. Postal Service rules tied to President Trump’s executive order targeting mail voting. The move fulfills a promise Gov. Gavin Newsom made to renew legal action as soon as the administration issued concrete regulations.

The timing traces back to the Supreme Court’s ruling earlier this week, which found that California’s original lawsuit had been filed prematurely — before the administration had actually put formal rules in place. That gap closed late last week when the Postal Service published final regulations requiring states to hand over lists of eligible mail voters, redesign ballot envelopes to meet federal approval, and add new tracking barcodes to ballot mail.

Trump’s executive order goes further, directing the Postal Service to withhold delivery of ballots to any voter not listed in a federal database the administration intends to create, and to cut off ballot delivery entirely in states that refuse to comply with the new requirements.

Bonta argues the Postal Service’s rules trample on constitutional boundaries that leave election administration primarily in the hands of states, not the federal government.

“President Trump doesn’t get to rewrite our voting system on a whim,” Bonta said during a virtual news conference Wednesday. “And the United States Postal Service cannot sidestep the laws that govern the postal service just to carry out the president’s agenda.”

The coalition of states contends that neither the president nor the Postal Service has the legal authority to dictate how elections are run, and warns that the new requirements threaten to disrupt mail voting on a broad scale. In California alone, more than 89% of voters cast ballots by mail during the state’s most recent primary in June, according to the Secretary of State’s office.

Trump has long criticized mail-in voting, repeatedly making unsupported claims that it fuels fraud, even though he has used mail ballots himself in past elections. Last year, he said on social media that he wanted to “lead a movement to get rid of mail-in ballots” altogether.

With the case now working its way through the courts, it remains uncertain whether the Postal Service’s new rules will be resolved — or enforced — in time to have any impact on this November’s elections.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Sues to Halt Trump Administration’s Mail-In Voting Restrictions, Days After Supreme Court Setback appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

California stands to collect up to $2.1 billion from the deal, pending a judge’s approval, Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office announced. The settlement calls for Meta to pay more than $12 billion upfront, with the total climbing toward $17 billion over the next decade if other social media companies reach similar agreements in related lawsuits, according to the New York Times.

The settlement resolves claims brought by a coalition of 47 states, spearheaded by the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey. Those officials accused Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, of deliberately designing its platforms to hook young users — and of pressing forward even as internal research revealed the toll on children’s mental health. Legal observers have likened the case to the landmark battles against the tobacco industry decades ago, and it was widely seen as a bellwether for similar lawsuits piling up against tech giants nationwide.

“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 a statement. A Meta spokesperson did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The agreement comes just days after opening statements began in the Oakland trial, which had been expected to stretch on for weeks. The case was one of several bellwether trials examining whether major tech firms knowingly marketed addictive products to minors despite the psychological damage they caused.

Meta has already faced costly defeats on similar grounds. Earlier this year, a Los Angeles jury found both Meta and Google liable in a related case, and Meta lost another lawsuit in New Mexico. Still, Tuesday’s settlement dwarfs any previous outcome in this wave of litigation.

Attorneys Lexi Hazam and Previn Warren, who have represented families and school districts suing tech companies, called the settlement “a major step toward holding Meta accountable for the harm its platforms have caused young people.” They noted that legal fights continue against other major platforms, including Google, Snap and TikTok. “We will not rest until every one of these plaintiffs sees justice for the harms caused by all of the defendants’ platforms,” they said.

Beyond the financial payout, the settlement — which still requires court approval — obligates Meta to make substantial changes to how its apps function for younger users. Among the commitments: a two-hour daily time limit for users under 18, which would drop to one hour if other platforms adopt similar caps; the removal of visible likes and reactions for minors; a halt to notifications sent to teens overnight or during school hours; a new system allowing teens to flag harmful content; and a pledge to respond to 90% of such reports within six hours.

Meta has also agreed to a broader review of its safety measures for teenage users.

“Meta has agreed to make massive transformations that will reduce the risk of harm from its platforms — and will do it within months,” Bonta said. “We are talking about time limits, stopping notifications during school, a block on the app during critical overnight hours, bans on plastic surgery filters, and so much more.”

Part of the settlement funds will go toward addressing the mental health effects of social media on children, while California lawmakers and the governor will determine how to allocate the state’s remaining share.

The settlement adds to a broader push in California to regulate how young people engage with social media. State lawmakers have already passed several bills addressing similar concerns, including restrictions on notifications during school hours — measures that mirror some of the design changes now required under the Meta agreement.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Meta to Pay $1.7 Billion, Restrict Teen ‘Likes’ Feature Under State Settlement appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Governor Gavin Newsom, of course, is no stranger to self-promotion. His office churns out a steady stream of press releases, videos and social media posts touting his accomplishments, an output that has only intensified as his final year in office approaches and speculation mounts about a possible presidential run.

But when it comes to sheer volume of self-congratulatory messaging, Bonta may have even Newsom beat.

Rarely does a day go by without Bonta’s communications staff issuing some kind of announcement — a press release, a social media post, a video — highlighting an achievement by the attorney general, who brands himself as “the People’s Attorney” fighting for justice on behalf of all Californians.

His office has issued nearly 500 press releases so far this year alone, not counting the additional messaging spread across other platforms.

This week, Bonta has been especially visible during a high-profile trial in Oakland, where California and three other states are suing Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Facebook, over allegations that the company intentionally designed its platforms to be addictive to young users. According to Bonta deputy Megan O’Neill, who delivered the opening statement, Meta sought to “hold them for as long as they can, harvest their data and hide the truth from the public.”

As the trial got underway Tuesday, Bonta posted a video outside the courtroom — notably on Facebook, one of the platforms at the center of the lawsuit — stating that his office was working to prove Meta had “designed and deployed harmful features on Instagram and Facebook that lead young users to compulsive use.”

Despite this steady stream of content, much of it never makes it into serious news coverage, largely because it amounts to self-promotion rather than substantive news.

That raises an interesting question: In his more than five years as attorney general, has Bonta’s office ever actually lost a case?

Occasionally, his office will acknowledge a legal setback, criticize the court’s decision, defend the state’s position and vow to appeal. But such admissions are few and far between, and outright losses are almost never candidly discussed.

That’s where what’s known as a “claims bill” comes in. These are pieces of legislation, typically drafted by the attorney general’s office, that authorize state funds to pay out settlements or judgments in cases the state has lost. They tend to move through the Legislature with little scrutiny or public debate.

The latest claims bill, still awaiting final approval before the legislative session wraps up on Aug. 31, would set aside $7.4 million to resolve eight different cases. Among them are four lawsuits successfully brought by gun rights advocates challenging California’s firearm regulations.

Newsom, Bonta and Democratic lawmakers have pushed an extensive slate of gun control measures over the years, many unique to California. But a growing number of these laws have been struck down in court, as challengers increasingly rely on recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings affirming the Second Amendment as an individual civil right.

Two of the cases Bonta’s office lost involved concealed carry permits, while the other two challenged the state’s restrictions on marketing firearms-related products to minors — restrictions that courts found violated free speech protections.

Californians shouldn’t have to wait for a quietly passed claims bill to learn which legal battles the attorney general’s office has lost. Bonta certainly isn’t going to trumpet his own defeats. Instead, the state should follow the lead of the City of Los Angeles, which maintains a public website tracking lawsuits the city has lost and the resulting payouts.

That website currently lists more than 12,000 cases and over $1.1 billion in settlements since fiscal year 2020 — a level of transparency that stands in sharp contrast to the carefully curated image Bonta’s office presents to the public.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Bonta Touts Wins, Downplays Courtroom Setbacks, Records Show appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Attorney General Rob Bonta announced Thursday that California has joined 24 other Democratic-led states in a lawsuit challenging fresh conditions placed on U.S. Department of Homeland Security grants — funding that helps states prepare for and respond to disasters such as wildfires and earthquakes.

The suit, filed in federal court in Rhode Island, targets a set of new requirements tied largely to elections. Among them: a mandate that states use a federal system to verify voters’ citizenship, a requirement to rely on hand-marked paper ballots, and a directive to conduct post-election audits. The rules would also require states to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement efforts and would give federal agencies broad discretion to cut off funding if states fall out of line.

At stake is money from programs like the Homeland Security Grant Program, created by Congress after the Sept. 11 attacks to help states guard against terrorism and other major threats, including cyberattacks. California receives roughly $150 million a year through that program alone.

Bonta argued that the administration is treating public safety funding as leverage rather than a guaranteed resource already approved by Congress.

“Instead of ensuring these critical resources reach the communities that need them, Trump is attempting to use this funding as leverage to force states to adopt his preferred political agenda,” Bonta said during a press conference.

According to the lawsuit, states that don’t comply with the new election-related conditions risk losing at least 20% of their Homeland Security Grant Program funding — and potentially all of it.

The push comes as the Trump administration has intensified calls for stricter election procedures, including voter ID requirements, ahead of the November midterms, citing concerns about voter fraud. Democratic officials, however, argue these measures are less about security and more about limiting turnout among certain voter groups.

FEMA pushed back on the lawsuit in a statement, describing it as “partisan pushback” from Democratic officials who oppose what the agency called “common-sense measures designed to protect election security and safeguard the integrity of American democracy.” The agency added that “election security is national security” and that the new requirements are meant to “preserve election integrity.”

This isn’t the first time California and its allies have fought the administration over these grants. Twice last year, the administration attempted to withhold the same funding as part of its push to compel states to assist with immigration enforcement. Both times, courts sided with California and the coalition of states challenging the move.

In one of those rulings, U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy — a Trump appointee — wrote that conditioning essential funding on “what appear to be Defendants’ political whims is unconscionable and, at least here, unlawful.”

The latest filing marks the 79th lawsuit California has brought against the Trump administration since it returned to office.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Sues Trump Administration Over Disaster Aid Rules Tied to Election Policies appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The program was created after the nationwide protests that followed the 2020 murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer. That year, California lawmakers approved legislation shifting investigations of fatal police shootings of unarmed people from local prosecutors to the California Department of Justice.

Supporters argued that state oversight would reduce conflicts of interest because district attorneys frequently depend on officers as witnesses in criminal cases. The change was intended to strengthen public confidence in decisions about whether officers should face criminal charges.

Five years later, the program has completed 41 cases, according to a CalMatters review. In none of those cases has the state recommended criminal charges against an officer who shot and killed an unarmed person.

Attorney General Rob Bonta had originally said the Justice Department would aim to finish the investigations within a year. That has not happened. On average, cases have taken nearly two years and five months to complete. Eight investigations, including several from rural Northern California, have remained open for more than three years.

The Justice Department has said funding has been a challenge. The police shooting review program received about $13 million a year, though the department had requested $26 million. Investigators raised concerns about staffing shortages as early as the program’s first case.

The delays can have serious legal consequences.

In California, prosecutors generally have three years to file charges for most crimes. Some offenses, including murder, have no statute of limitations. But if a police shooting investigation passes the three-year mark, certain possible charges can no longer be filed. Those include involuntary manslaughter and aggravated assault, charges that have been used in past cases involving officers who killed people.

Lengthy investigations can also affect police discipline at the state level.

A year after California created the shooting investigation program, lawmakers approved a separate law allowing officers to lose their certification for serious misconduct. Decertification bars an officer from continuing to work in law enforcement in California.

That process also has a three-year deadline. If a Department of Justice investigation goes beyond that point, the agency can no longer recommend that an officer be stripped of their certification in connection with the shooting.

The decertification system is overseen by the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, known as POST. The commission told CalMatters it can open its own investigations when officers are accused of serious misconduct.

The shift to state investigations has also revived debate over whether local accountability has been weakened.

Before the law took effect, many law enforcement officials and district attorneys opposed it. But some prosecutors who supported police reform also had concerns. They warned that moving cases to Sacramento could reduce pressure on local elected district attorneys, who otherwise would have to explain charging decisions to their own communities.

Cristine Soto DeBerry, who helped create a police-officer investigation unit while serving as chief of staff in the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office, said local prosecutors directly feel the weight of community concern, protests and public attention.

Under the current system, those charging decisions are handled by the state, not the county district attorney.

Local law enforcement agencies are still allowed to conduct their own investigations after a fatal police shooting in their jurisdiction. Bonta’s office has said the law does not prevent police departments or sheriff’s agencies from running parallel reviews.

In practice, however, CalMatters found that local agencies often step back once the state takes over.

Capt. Brian Cole, who oversees detectives for the Redding Police Department, said that when a case meets the criteria for state review and the Department of Justice accepts it, his agency does not conduct a separate criminal investigation during or after the state’s review. He said the Justice Department has full criminal jurisdiction over the matter.

Although the state says its review is focused on whether an officer committed a crime, the result in many cases is that the Department of Justice investigation becomes the only criminal inquiry into the shooting.

Original source: CalMatters

The post What to Know About California’s Backlog of Police Shooting Investigations appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Some party activists and strategists feared that too many Democratic candidates could split the vote in California’s top-two primary system, potentially allowing two conservative Republicans to advance to the November runoff. They wanted Newsom to intervene, endorse a favored candidate and effectively clear the field.

He stayed out. The primary results suggest that decision may have served him well: Democrats still advanced a candidate to the runoff, while Newsom avoided the political risk of appearing to dictate the party’s future.

But even without endorsing a successor, Newsom has already shaped the next generation of California politics in a way few governors have. Through a series of vacancies, appointments and national political shifts, he has placed allies and rising figures in some of the most powerful elected offices in the state.

The chain of appointments began after President Joe Biden selected then-U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris as his running mate in 2020. When Harris became vice president, Newsom chose then-Secretary of State Alex Padilla to fill her U.S. Senate seat. Padilla, a longtime Newsom ally, had chaired Newsom’s 2010 gubernatorial campaign before Newsom stepped aside for Jerry Brown and ran for lieutenant governor instead.

Padilla’s move to the Senate created another vacancy. Newsom filled it by appointing Assemblymember Shirley Weber as secretary of state.

Soon after, Biden nominated California Attorney General Xavier Becerra to serve as U.S. secretary of Health and Human Services. Newsom then selected Assemblymember Rob Bonta, who had been viewed as a potential future candidate for attorney general, to take Becerra’s place.

The appointments continued after the death of U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein in 2023. Newsom chose Laphonza Butler, a labor leader and Harris ally, to temporarily fill the seat. For a short time, both of California’s U.S. Senate seats and a significant share of the state’s elected constitutional offices were held by people Newsom had appointed — including Newsom himself.

Weber and Bonta later won full terms in 2022. Padilla also won election that year, though his situation was unusual. Because he had been appointed to Harris’ seat, he appeared on the ballot twice: once to serve the final weeks of Harris’ unexpired term and once for a new six-year term. The arrangement stemmed from legal requirements tied to how appointed U.S. senators must face voters.

Butler’s appointment unfolded differently. Newsom had faced criticism for not appointing a Black woman to replace Harris in the Senate. He later pledged to appoint a Black woman if Feinstein’s seat became vacant, but also initially said the appointee should not run for a full term. He later said she could.

After taking office, Butler announced she would not seek the seat. Rep. Adam Schiff won the election for the full term. Butler then resigned before the term ended, and Newsom appointed Schiff to serve the brief remaining period, giving him a small amount of additional Senate seniority.

In all, Newsom made three appointments to the U.S. Senate.

Many of his selections were historic. Padilla became California’s first Latino U.S. senator. Butler became the state’s first openly LGBTQ senator. Bonta is California’s first Filipino American attorney general, and Weber is the state’s first Black secretary of state.

Those milestones are likely to be a central part of Newsom’s legacy in California. They also could become part of his national political argument if, as widely expected, he runs for president in 2028.

Newsom’s influence extends beyond statewide office. As governor, he has filled vacancies on eight county boards of supervisors. Including his years as San Francisco mayor, when he also appointed a supervisor, the total rises to nine. He has appointed three of the seven justices on the California Supreme Court and is expected to name a fourth.

Former Gov. Jerry Brown appointed more state Supreme Court justices over his 16 years in office, but no California governor in the past century has matched Newsom’s volume of appointments to high-profile elected positions. Brown also played an indirect role in setting off the sequence by appointing Becerra as attorney general after Harris was elected to the Senate. When Harris and Becerra later joined the Biden administration, Newsom gained the opportunity to fill those vacancies.

The political importance of those decisions may grow as Newsom looks beyond Sacramento. If he seeks the Democratic presidential nomination, possibly against other prominent Californians such as Harris, he would enter the race with a deep network of officeholders whose careers were advanced by his appointments.

He also would be able to point to a record of elevating officials from historically underrepresented communities, a message that could resonate in a Democratic primary. That record would fit alongside another major chapter of his political career: his decision as San Francisco mayor to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, helping push same-sex marriage into the national debate.

At the same time, opponents will likely scrutinize some of his past appointments. Republicans emphasizing crime and public safety are expected to highlight Newsom’s role in appointing George Gascón first as San Francisco police chief and later as San Francisco district attorney.

For Newsom, the argument may be that those choices must be judged alongside the long list of other appointments he has made — appointments that have reshaped California’s political leadership and could prove valuable if he turns his attention to the White House.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Newsom’s California Protégés Could Be Key to a Presidential Run appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The law, signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2020 after the murder of George Floyd intensified national demands for police reform, shifted responsibility for certain fatal police shooting investigations away from local agencies and district attorneys. Instead, the California Department of Justice was required to investigate fatal shootings by law enforcement when the person killed was unarmed.

Supporters said the change would help avoid conflicts of interest that can arise when local prosecutors review cases involving police departments they work with regularly. They also argued the attorney general’s office would bring greater independence, credibility and resources to investigations that often draw intense public scrutiny.

But a CalMatters review found the program has fallen far behind the timeline promised by Attorney General Rob Bonta, who pledged after taking office in 2021 that investigations would be completed within 12 months. According to the review, the Department of Justice has not closed a single case within one year.

The average investigation has taken nearly two years and five months to complete. Of 41 closed cases, only eight were finished in less than two years. Thirteen use-of-force investigations have stretched beyond three years, a delay that can put some potential criminal charges out of reach because of statutes of limitations, except for the most serious allegations such as murder.

The delays also affect police certification. Once a case goes past three years, an officer generally cannot be decertified in connection with the incident, meaning the state cannot use that process to prevent the officer from working for another law enforcement agency.

So far, Bonta’s office has not prosecuted any officer under the program. It also has not referred any officer for decertification or discipline after completing a police shooting investigation.

The slow pace has frustrated families waiting for answers and officers waiting to be cleared or charged. It has also raised concerns among police leaders and former prosecutors who say a system intended to strengthen public trust may be undermining it instead.

“In my experience, three years is an awful long period of time, especially if you’re starting to come upon statutes of limitations,” said Anne Marie Schubert, the former Sacramento County district attorney who ran unsuccessfully for attorney general in 2022.

Schubert said she was surprised that the most recent case closed by the program involved a shooting from 2023.

“Is it resources? Is it experience?” she said. “That’s a question I’d want to know.”

Bonta’s office has attributed the backlog largely to limited funding and the Legislature’s decision not to provide the full amount the Department of Justice requested when the program was created. The office also says local authorities are not barred from conducting their own parallel investigations.

In practice, however, local agencies often step back once the state takes over.

Capt. Brian Cole, who oversees the detective division at the Redding Police Department, said his agency does not conduct a separate criminal investigation when the Department of Justice accepts jurisdiction under the law.

“They have complete criminal jurisdiction of the matter,” Cole said.

One case that illustrates the delay began in Redding in February 2023, after a confrontation between California Highway Patrol Officer Ryan Cates and 31-year-old David Couch.

Couch had been jailed on Christmas Day 2022 and released on Feb. 8, 2023. His mother, Jeanelle Couch, said her son was experiencing a manic episode when he came home. In a lawsuit she later filed, she alleged he had been given the wrong medication for bipolar disorder during his jail stay and had spent much of that time in solitary confinement.

After his release, Couch returned to his mother’s home. She recalled that he seemed relieved to see family.

“He was happy to see us and he asked if we remembered him,” she said. The next morning, before she left for work, he spoke with her at length. “And then I didn’t see him again alive.”

That afternoon, Couch was sitting in his car in his mother’s driveway in a residential neighborhood. At 5:25 p.m., the California Highway Patrol received a report that a driver heading south on Interstate 5 had brandished a gun. The vehicle description and license plate matched Couch’s car.

Nine minutes later, Cates arrived at the home.

Dashboard camera footage showed Couch seated in a white Ford sedan with the driver’s door open. Cates ordered him to show his hands and put them up. Couch got out wearing a brown hooded sweatshirt, khaki pants, a gray baseball cap and a backpack. He held a cellphone with both hands.

According to the Department of Justice investigation, Couch also had knives strapped to his jacket, though he did not reach for them. The footage showed him walking toward Cates, who had his gun drawn.

Some of the exchange could not be heard clearly on the video. As the confrontation escalated, Couch told Cates to leave him alone, used profanity and said “shoot.” A struggle followed outside the camera’s view. The Department of Justice later reported that Couch gained control of Cates’ Taser.

Cates told investigators he believed Couch was trying to take his handgun. Moments later, after several audible clicks, Cates fired four shots. The encounter lasted about one minute.

Couch survived for nine days and died Feb. 17, 2023.

His sister, Lauren Metzger, wrote in an online fundraiser that the family could not understand why the shooting happened and said Couch did not have a gun on him when relatives and a friend found him in the street.

During the days Couch remained alive, a five-agency team led by the Redding Police Department began investigating the shooting. After Couch died, the Department of Justice took control of the case, and the local investigation ended.

More than three years later, the state completed its review. The Department of Justice investigation took 1,199 days and concluded there was insufficient evidence to support a criminal prosecution of Cates.

Cates returned to work, according to the California Highway Patrol. His attorney did not respond to messages from CalMatters.

Couch’s family has filed a federal lawsuit against the state, Shasta County and the officer. Shasta County and the state have denied responsibility. In its response, the county said Cates is entitled to qualified immunity, a legal protection that can limit civil liability for government officials, including police officers.

The statewide investigation program was born from Assembly Bill 1506, legislation pushed for years by former Assemblymember Kevin McCarty of Sacramento. The fatal shooting of Stephon Clark by Sacramento police in 2018 helped build support for outside review, especially after Schubert, then Sacramento County’s district attorney, declined to charge the officers involved.

Floyd’s killing by a Minneapolis police officer in May 2020 helped propel the bill through the Legislature and to Newsom’s desk. Police accountability advocates strongly supported the change, and Bonta, then an assemblymember, championed it.

But even before the law took effect, the Department of Justice warned that it did not have enough money to do the work as envisioned. The department asked for $26 million to create new investigative teams. State lawmakers approved about half that amount.

Then-Attorney General Xavier Becerra wrote to McCarty in January 2021 that the funding was “significantly lower” than the department’s estimates and not enough to create the professional teams needed for the new investigative and prosecutorial duties.

The original plan called for four regional investigative teams, based in Sacramento, Fresno, Los Angeles and Riverside — a structure that would have placed a dedicated team in the Inland Empire and another in Southern California’s largest metro area. Instead, the department received funding for two teams, one covering Northern California and one covering Southern California.

Within days of receiving its first case, the Department of Justice’s shooting investigation teams recognized they were short-staffed. In a 2022 budget request, the department said special agents could not complete dozens of tasks and assignments because staffing was limited.

One year into the program, investigations were already falling behind Bonta’s one-year goal. At the time, Bonta said the department would have to make do with the funding it had received.

“We got the funding that we got, and we’re going to make it work,” he said then. “We have no choice. We have to find a way.”

Since then, cases have continued to lengthen — first beyond one year, then beyond two. In 2025, one case passed the three-year mark.

The Department of Justice did not make anyone available for an interview with CalMatters about the backlog. In a written statement, a spokesperson said Bonta personally reviews every investigation and said the cases vary in complexity.

“All investigations are unique in their complexity, and some may take longer than others to investigate and reach a conclusion,” the statement said.

The office said it is working to improve speed and efficiency.

“We’re continuously identifying ways to tighten timelines and improve our processes,” the statement said. “It’s a balancing act — but it’s one we’re actively managing. Improvements are already taking hold. In the last two and a half years, we closed 9 times as many cases as were closed in the first two and a half years that the law was operational, and we remain committed to improving.”

Law enforcement leaders say the delays have become a serious problem.

Sean Thuilliez, president of the California Police Chiefs Association, said chiefs across the state have repeatedly pushed for faster reviews.

“When transparency is not accompanied by timeliness, the system risks falling short for everyone — eroding confidence, deepening mistrust, and prolonging uncertainty,” Thuilliez said.

Some prosecutors and advocates who support police accountability also have reservations about removing local officials entirely from the process. They argue that community pressure is often strongest at the local level, where families, activists and residents can confront elected district attorneys and law enforcement leaders directly.

Cristine Soto DeBerry, who helped create a police officer investigation unit while serving as chief of staff at the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office, said local prosecutors feel the weight of community concern in ways state officials may not. She now leads the Prosecutors Alliance, a progressive advocacy organization.

“Local concern, local protests, local interest is felt by local prosecutors,” DeBerry said. “The very real pain of family and community members that experience that absolutely has an impact on a prosecutor and their willingness to take this crime seriously.”

For Jeanelle Couch, the Department of Justice decision did not end her family’s search for accountability. She said she remains hopeful that the civil lawsuits will bring more answers about her son’s death.

“I want light on it,” she said. “That’s what I want. Just, justice.”

Asked what justice would look like now, she looked down.

“Now?” she said. “I don’t know.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Law Inspired by George Floyd Protests Had Unintended Impact on Police Accountability appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.