Dec 52024

California Kicks Off Special Legislative Session in Response to Presidential Election

Samuel B. Boxerman, Maureen F. Gorsen and Caleb J. Bowers
, , ,

On December 2, California lawmakers began a special legislative session, convened by Democratic Governor Newsom, aimed at bolstering state support for opposing the incoming U.S. presidential administration.

Soon after the November 2024 election results were announced, Governor Newsom announced a special legislative session would be held for the purpose of increasing California’s resources for potential legal disputes with the incoming Trump administration. The announcement was short on details but the scope of the session is now taking shape.

  • SBX1-1 ‒ Democratic Assembly member Gabriel and Democratic Senator Wiener have introduced a bill that would provide US$25 million in additional funds for the California Department of Justice, which would play a key role in defending against federal challenges and litigating affirmative challenges the state may bring to federal actions. The legislation takes the unique measure of allowing the California Department of Finance, the Governor’s fiscal policy advisor, to augment appropriations for litigation purposes and for “[t]aking administrative action . . . to mitigate impacts of actions taken by the federal government” solely by notifying the Joint Legislative Budget Committee. It would also provide US$10 million to county and city lawyers, who would play a key role in defending local initiatives.
  • Additional measures ‒ A fact sheet published by the Governor’s office further references safeguarding services and funding such as for disaster relief and health care, citing 122 lawsuits that the California Department of Justice filed during the previous Trump administration and funding recouped through those cases. Any resulting legislation is expected before Inauguration Day, January 20, 2025.

The bills introduced on the opening day of the special session illustrate the steps that California elected officials are prepared to take to increase resources and legal authorities—such as the Attorney General’s enforcement authority—against the incoming administration and its policies, which include environmental priorities.

The bills come on the heels of the state’s regular legislative session, which resulted in new authorities impacting Californians and those doing business in the state, including extended producer responsibility requirements for managing products at the end of life, product registration and testing for PFAS-containing products, and new restrictions on warehouse development and truck traffic. The recent California legislation is discussed in this Sidley update.

The state legislature and Governor have also continuously focused on regulating fossil fuels and producers, such as by setting inventory requirements for oil refiners. Environmental policies and initiatives are expected to feature prominently over the next four years, as California and the Trump administration battle over priorities related to climate change, fossil fuels, and regulations.

This post is as of the posting date stated above. Sidley Austin LLP assumes no duty to update this post or post about any subsequent developments having a bearing on this post.

Samuel B. Boxerman

Washington, D.C.

sboxerman@sidley.com

Maureen F. Gorsen

Century City

maureen.gorsen@sidley.com

Caleb J. Bowers

Los Angeles

cbowers@sidley.com

You might also like
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Proposes New Critical Habitat Designation in California

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has proposed designating approximately 760,000 acres in California as critical habitat for four distinct population segments (DPSs) of the foothill yellow-legged frog, a species that is listed as either endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).[1] The critical habitat designation includes areas within the geographical range of the foothill yellow-legged frog that contain the physical or biological features that FWS has deemed essential to the species’ conservation, as well as areas outside the current range that are deemed necessary for the species’ recovery. EPA based its determination on the “best available scientific data after taking into consideration the economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.”[2]

EPA Appeals Dismissal of Suit Against eBay

On November 26, 2024, the United States, on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), appealed a district court decision dismissing the government’s claims that eBay violated the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

Jarkesy’s Potential Implications for EPA Administrative Proceedings

On June 27, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court decided SEC v. Jarkesy,[1] holding that when the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) alleges a defendant has violated securities antifraud provisions and seeks civil penalties, the defendant is entitled to a jury trial in federal court under the Seventh Amendment. The ruling restricts the SEC’s use of its own in-house administrative tribunal with its own administrative law judges (ALJs), which the SEC has historically used to pursue antifraud claims. While the Court’s ruling focuses on the SEC, the principles underlying the decision may be applied more broadly to restrict the ability of other federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to pursue civil penalties via their own administrative proceedings.