Primary Source: Weekly Legislative and Litigation Updates from California Justice Center
This has been a heavy week for California. As I write, the Palisades Fire has burned 21,713 acres and the Eaton Fire has burned 14,117 acres. Over 10,000 structures have been destroyed, and at least 24 people have died and many are missing. The damage is incomprehensible.
We still do not know exactly what started the fires. Hurricane-force Santa Ana winds spread the fires rapidly. By the time I went to bed on Tuesday, all firefighting air support was grounded due to high winds and no water was coming out of the hydrants in Pacific Palisades. Needless to say it was a sleepless night. The policy and leadership failures that led to incomprehensible levels of destruction will be laid bare over the next few weeks. Empty reservoirs, non-functioning hydrants, an absent Mayor, repeated erroneous evacuation alerts, and heavily reduced public safety budgets are unforced human errors that must be reckoned with. There will be more to come from me on these issues.
For now, I will be tracking legislative and litigation updates relevant to California Justice Center’s mission, and sharing weekly posts here to provide you with direct access to primary sources and easy to follow summaries of the most important legal issues impacting Californians.
Litigation Updates
1. ExxonMobil v. Bonta (E.D. Texas Case No. 25-cv-00011)
Issues: Rob Bonta’s Abuse of Public Trust, Defamation, Lawfare
New Case. On Monday January 6, 2025, Exxon Mobile filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas against California Attorney General Rob Bonta, and environmental NGOs like the Sierra Club and Surfrider Foundation, alleging business disparagement, defamation, tortious interference with contract, tortious interference with prospective business, and civil conspiracy.
Exxon alleges that Bonta, foreign interests and US proxies (the environmental NGOs) use smear campaigns and lawfare for politics, publicity, and private gain, and did so specifically here when they worked together to attack Exxon’s recycling activities. The lawsuit also alleges that Bonta used false smears of Exxon in campaign fundraising emails to donors, and alludes to serious campaign finance violations by Bonta with respect to his relationship with the Cotchett firm, significant donations Bonta received from lawyers representing Southern California Edison immediately after Bonta announced he wouldn’t seek criminal charges against Edison in connection with the Woolsey Fire, and Bonta’s relationship with the Duong family (to whom he returned $155,100 in campaign contributions).
This lawsuit follows Bonta’s 2023 complaint accusing five major oil companies, including ExxonMobil, of deliberately lying about fossil fuels and contributing to climate change, and Bonta’s 2024 lawsuit against ExxonMobil for allegedly engaging in “a decades-long campaign of deception that caused and exacerbated the global plastics pollution crisis”.
2. Mirabelli v. Olson (S.D. California Case No. 23-cv-0768)
Issues: Parental Rights, Free Speech
Update: On Tuesday, Jan. 7, 2025, the court issued an 8,000 word decision denying the government’s motion to dismiss the case. A win for parents and the Constitution.
“This Court concludes that, in a collision of rights as between parents and child, the long-recognized federal constitutional rights of parents must eclipse the state rights of the child. Therefore, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have stated plausible claims upon which relief can be granted and the motions to dismiss are denied.”
We are all eagerly awaiting a final decision on the merits in this case, which cannot come soon enough. More case information is here.
3. Mae M. v. Komrosky (AKA Mae v. Schwartz) (4th Appellate District Case No. G064332)
Issues: Parental Notification Policies, Critical Race Theory, Union-Forced Political Orthodoxy
Update: The Court of Appeal scheduled oral argument for February 20, 2025 at 1:30 pm. You can watch oral arguments at this link.
Background: BigLaw firm Ballard Spahr and Public Counsel filed this case in Riverside County Superior Court (Riverside County Case No. CVSW2306224) on behalf of union interests against the Temecula Valley Unified School District challenging policies that (1) prohibit the teaching of critical race theory and (2) require parental notification of psychological transition of a child at school. The trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, finding, among other things:
“Theories such as an individual is inherently morally or otherwise superior to another individual because of race or sex, or that individuals are either a member of the oppressor class or the oppressed class because of race or sex, or an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist and/or sexist would seem to be incongruous with the Legislature‘s clear intent found in California Education Code 233.5. Indeed, teachers are to impress on students principals of truth, the dignity of American citizenship and the meaning of equality and human dignity which includes the promotion of harmonious relations free from discriminatory attitudes.”
Plaintiffs (including Temecula Valley Educators Association and individual Temecula teachers) appealed. On behalf of the California Policy Center, we filed an amicus brief in support of Respondents and Defendants. Read more about our brief here.
Related: California Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) ordered Temecula Unified to rescind its notification policy in a decision against the district on October 14, 2024. Following the union’s charges of unfair labor practices relating to the parental notification policy, PERB found the District (1) failed and refused to meet and negotiate in good faith with the union by adopting the parental notification policy and thereby derivatively interfered with rights guaranteed by the Education Employment Relations Act (EERA) to certificated employees and the union as alleged in PERB’s complaint; (2) that the District’s unilateral adoption of a provision requiring parental notification for any verbal and physical altercations involving students also violated the District’s duty to meet and negotiate in good faith and derivatively interfered or denied protected rights; and (3) that by adopting, maintaining, and/or enforcing a prohibition on displaying most flags and depictions of flags anywhere on school grounds, the District independently interfered with and denied protected rights, as alleged in PERB’s complaint.
Notably, this PERB procedure is yet another weapon used against Temecula Unified by the union, in addition to litigation in court (which the union lost), an administrative complaint with the California Department of Education (which ruled in favor of the union), a recall election (which succeeded, but the recalled board member recently won re-election). The extent to which government unions will go to ensure their prescribed orthodoxy is followed in public schools is truly something to behold.
4. Huntington Beach v. Newsom (C.D. California Case No. 25-cv-00026)
Issues: Sanctuary Policies, Federal Preemption
New Case: The City of Huntington Beach sued Gavin Newsom and Rob Bonta over the state’s immigration sanctuary policies, alleging the Sanctuary State Law violates the Supremacy and Naturalization Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, and forces City officials to violate federal immigration laws under 8 U.S. Code, Sections 1324 and 1373, and 18 U.S. Code, Sections 371 and 372.
Government defendants will likely argue that South Lake Tahoe bars relief, unless an en banc 9th Circuit panel overturns existing precedent in Huntington Beach’s housing case pending in the 9th Circuit, which says cities and district cannot sue the State in federal court.
5. Title 9 Litigation Updates: Tennessee v. Cardona (E.D. Kentucky, Case No. 24-cv-00072)
Issues: Constitutionality of Biden Title 9 Rule
Decision on the merits: The Eastern District of Kentucky vacated Biden’s Title 9 Rule, which replaced “sex-based” discrimination with “gender identity-based” discrimination.
Biden’s rule mandated access to sports and educational programs based on self-identified gender, ending protections for women and girls that the plain language of Title 9 provided. This decision restores those protections, as well as the Trump-era due process protections.
The court said: “Because the Final Rule and its corresponding regulations exceed the Department’s authority under Title IX, violate the Constitution, and are the result of arbitrary and capricious agency action, the plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment will be granted and the Department’s motion for summary judgment will be denied.”
Legislative Updates
Special session on “Trump-proofing” California
On Thursday, January 9, 2025, in the midst of arguably the worst wildfire disaster in California history, the California Legislature convened for a special session at the behest of Governor Gavin Newsom. The special session was not to address the active wildfire emergency, but to discuss “Trump-proofing” the State before Donald Trump takes office on January 20, 2025.
KCAL Reporter and California hero Ashley Zavala questioned Speaker Rivas in a video that I insist you watch for yourself. Zavala’s report is here.
Assembly Republican Minority Leader James Gallagher stated the obvious: "We should end the special session we have right now and have a new special session completely focused on wildfire and insurance….This is going to cause a huge crisis with the FAIR plan and insurance markets across the board in California.” Per usual, the Democrat supermajority ignored Mr. Gallagher.
Additional Cases We Are Tracking
BB. v. Capistrano Unified (9th Circ. Case No. 24-1770)
Issues: Free Speech, Union-Forced Political Orthodoxy and Racial Ideology in School.
Huntington Beach v. Newsom (9th Circ. Case No. No. 23-3694)
Issues: Unconstitutional Housing Laws, South Lake Tahoe Rule, Ability of Cities and School Districts to Sue State in Federal Court
