Existing law, the Medical Practice Act, establishes the Medical Board of California to license and regulate the practice of medicine. Former law, repealed as of January 1, 2025, established the Licensed Physicians and Dentists from Mexico Pilot Program, which allowed up to 30 licensed physicians and up to 30 licensed dentists from Mexico to practice medicine or dentistry in California for a period not to exceed 3 years, in accordance with certain requirements. Existing law, operative January 1, 2025, instead, establishes within the act the Licensed Physicians from Mexico Program, which authorizes the board to issue a limited number of nonrenewable 3-year physician's and surgeon's licenses to licensed physicians from Mexico who meet specified criteria. This bill would require the board to issue a full and unrestricted physician's and surgeon's license to a person who has completed 2 3-year terms of the Licensed Physicians from Mexico Program or the former Licensed Physicians and Dentists from Mexico Pilot Program in good standing upon satisfaction of specified requirements, including having an offer of continued employment from a health care facility or practice in California. This bill would establish the California Physician Expansion Act, which would require the board to issue a provisional license to an applicant who holds a full and unrestricted license to practice medicine in another country who meets specified requirements, including that the applicant has not committed any acts or crimes constituting grounds for denial of a certificate, as specified. In this regard, the bill would require the board to submit to the Department of Justice fingerprint images and related information required by the department of all applicants for a provisional license to determine whether the applicant has a criminal conviction record, as specified, and would require the department to provide a state- and federal-level response pursuant to specified provisions for the board to determine whether the applicant is subject to denial of licensure, as specified. The bill would make the provisional license valid for 3 years and would authorize the board to grant a one-time renewal for an additional period of up to 3 years, as specified. The bill would require a provisional licensee to, among other things, be employed by, and practice medicine only within, a sponsoring entity, as specified. The bill would authorize the board to revoke a provisional license or take any other disciplinary action deemed appropriate by the board, as specified. The bill would deem a provisional licensee applicant who meets specified requirements, including having completed at least 36 months of practice under the provisional license without any disciplinary actions, to meet the professional instruction, preliminary education, and postgraduate training requirements for a certificate under the Medical Practice Act. The bill would require the board to establish application, initial licensure, renewal, and conversion fees for the provisional license, as specified. The bill would make findings and declarations relating to its provisions.
Existing law establishes a system of public elementary and secondary schools in this state and authorizes local educational agencies throughout the state to operate schools and provide instruction to pupils in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive. Existing law establishes various programs for the recruitment of teachers. Existing law establishes the Bilingual Teacher Professional Development Program, administered by the State Department of Education in consultation with the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, for teachers seeking to provide instruction in bilingual and multilingual settings. This bill, which would be operative upon appropriation by the Legislature, would establish the Pathways to Bilingual Teaching Program and would require the commission to develop and implement a program to award, on a competitive basis, grants of up to $600,000 to local educational agencies to form consortia with 4-year institutions of higher education, or 4-year institutions of higher education and community colleges, to establish or expand pathways to bilingual teaching to enable bilingual pupils to earn a multiple subject, single subject, PK-3 early childhood education specialist, or education specialist teaching credential, with a bilingual authorization, as provided. The bill would require the commission to annually report to the appropriate fiscal and policy committees of the Legislature on any grants funded until funds are fully expended, as specified.
Existing law, the California Values Act, requires the Attorney General, by October 1, 2018, in consultation with the appropriate stakeholders, to publish model policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible consistent with federal and state law at public schools, public libraries, health facilities operated by the state or a political subdivision of the state, courthouses, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement facilities, the Agricultural Labor Relations Board, the Division of Workers' Compensation, and shelters and ensure that they remain safe and accessible to all California residents, regardless of immigration status. The act requires all public schools, health facilities operated by the state or a political subdivision of the state, and courthouses to implement the model policy or an equivalent policy. This bill would require the Attorney General, on or before October 30, 2027, and annually thereafter, to submit to the Legislature and the Governor, and post on its internet website, a report that includes, among other things, a summary of all immigration enforcement incidents and activities occurring on or after September 1, 2025, conducted by a person at a designated location that have been reported by the designated location or a person who witnessed the activity to the Attorney General, as specified. The bill would authorize the Attorney General to request representatives of a designated location to furnish any reported immigration enforcement incidents and activities as part of compiling its annual report and would authorize the Attorney General to issue civil penalties or conduct other enforcement activity to ensure compliance with these provisions. The bill would prohibit the report from including any personally identifiable information regarding an individual stopped, detained, or arrested by an individual conducting an immigration enforcement activity. The bill would define "designated location" to mean schoolsites, health care provider entities, shelters, polling places, state courthouses, public transportation access points, and state and local government property. The bill would define "immigration enforcement" for these purposes to mean an effort to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of a federal civil or criminal immigration lawsuit. To the extent the bill would impose duties on locals, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law generally regulates various business activities and practices related to consumer rights. Existing law requires law enforcement and state and local governments to interact with and report on federal action against individuals based on their perceived or actual immigration status in various specified manners. This bill would require a large retail store doing business in this state, as defined, to provide the Attorney General with copies of specified documentation related to immigration enforcement activity, as defined, that occurs on the large retail store's premises, including copies of any video footage, upon receipt of an administrative subpoena, as specified. The bill would exempt documentation submitted as described above from the California Public Records Act. The bill would require the large retail store to preserve the documentation described above, as specified. The bill would also require the large home improvement retailer to disclose on the retailer's internet website certain information, including any policies and practices the large home improvement retailer maintains that relate to immigration enforcement activity on its premises, as specified. The bill would also require the large retail store to provide the county in which the immigration enforcement activity occurred with access to the above-described documentation, as specified. In connection with that requirement, the bill would require every county board of supervisors to select that appropriate agency in the county to have the authority to access that documentation. By imposing new duties on counties, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize the Attorney General or a county counsel to bring an action for injunctive relief for a violation of the above provisions. The bill would repeal its provisions on January 1, 2030. The bill would make related findings and declarations and would declare the severability of its provisions. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law establishes various benefit programs, including grant programs and loan programs. Existing law, the California Values Act, generally prohibits California law enforcement agencies from using their moneys or personnel for immigration enforcement purposes, except as specified. This bill would prohibit an administrator of a covered program, as those terms are defined, from awarding a grant or issuing a loan from a covered program to a private entity that contracts with United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, except as specified. The bill would require each private entity applying to a covered program to agree to identify to the administrator of that covered program any subcontractors to be used under the contract and to certify to the administrator that the subcontractors do not contract with United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The bill would require an administrator to include in their eligibility requirements for their covered programs that an eligible private entity and its subcontractors for each covered program, if any, shall not contract with United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The bill would make related findings and declarations. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. By imposing additional duties on local agencies and expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Senate Resolution 120 establishes Filipino American History Month to recognize the long-standing contributions of Filipinos and Filipino Americans to California and the United States. The resolution highlights key historical events, including early immigration, service during World War II, and the significant role Filipino workers played in California's agricultural industry and labor rights movements. By documenting these achievements, the bill aims to honor the resilience and impact of this community throughout American history.
This resolution would state, among other things, that the Legislature supports the establishment of a Mexican Consulate in the County of Kern to strengthen the state's relationship with Mexico and empower immigrant communities.
Existing law establishes the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services and under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services. The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid program provisions. Existing law sets a schedule of benefits that are covered by the Medi-Cal program. The federal Medicaid program prohibits payment to a state for medical assistance furnished to an alien who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence or otherwise permanently residing in the United States under color of law. Existing state law extends Medi-Cal eligibility for the full scope of Medi-Cal benefits to individuals who do not have satisfactory immigration status if they are otherwise eligible for those benefits, with the exception of specified dental benefits for individuals who are 19 years of age or older. Existing law makes an individual who is 19 years of age or older, who does not have satisfactory immigration status, and who applies for Medi-Cal on or after January 1, 2026, or loses eligibility for eligibility for full-scope Medi-Cal on or after January 1, 2026, eligible only for pregnancy-related services and emergency medical treatment. Existing law, beginning no sooner than July 1, 2027, as specified, requires individuals who do not have satisfactory immigration status, who are not pregnant, and who are 19 to 59 years of age, inclusive, to pay a monthly premium of $30, subject to certain exceptions. This bill would require the Director of the Department of Finance to determine and report to the Legislature and the Governor the cost of implementing eligibility for the full scope of Medi-Cal benefits for individuals who do not have satisfactory immigration status if they are otherwise eligible, and whether including those costs the General Fund would be in a deficit, as defined. The bill would then, on January 1 of the year following such a determination, end the above-described limitations on services for those who apply for Medi-Cal after January 1, 2026, or who lose eligibility for the full-scope of Medi-Cal benefits on or after January 1, 2026, thereby making an individual who is 19 years of age or older, who does not have satisfactory immigration status, eligible for the full scope of Medi-Cal benefits subject to certain limitations, such as the payment of premiums and certain dental benefits. The bill would require that the implementation of eligibility for the full-scope of Medi-Cal benefits be done by groups categorized by age, beginning with individuals over 49 years of age. Because counties are required to make Medi-Cal eligibility determinations and this bill would alter Medi-Cal eligibility, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law provides that a tenant is guilty of unlawful detainer if the tenant continues to possess the property without permission of the landlord after the tenant defaults on rent or fails to perform a condition or covenant of the lease under which the property is held, among other reasons. Existing law requires a tenant to be served a 3 days' notice in writing to cure a default or perform a condition of the lease, or return possession of the property to the landlord, as specified. This bill, the Tenant Protections for Immigrant Families Act of 2026 (Act) , would, until January 1, 2030, prohibit an owner of residential real property, as defined, from initiating or continuing an unlawful detainer action to evict a tenant whose income, ability to obtain income, or financial support is impacted by immigration enforcement activities until no sooner than 90 days after the tenant or household member's detention-related hardship ends, as specified. The bill would require a court to stay the proceeding of a pending unlawful detainer action against a covered tenant if certain conditions are satisfied, including that the tenant provides the court with specified documentation, such as a signed declaration of detention-related hardship that includes a specified statement, that the tenant or household member suffered a detention-related hardship that prevented them from paying the unpaid rent alleged in the unlawful detainer action. Any person who knowingly provides false information in the declaration of detention-related hardship would be subject to a civil fine of up to $1,500. Under the bill, if a tenant has raised detention-related hardship as an affirmative defense, an owner of residential real property may request an evidentiary hearing regarding the tenant's detention-related hardship stay of the unlawful detainer action, at which the tenant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence their detention-related hardship. The bill would prohibit the owner from charging or collecting any late fees, interest, or other penalties related to the nonpayment of rent by a tenant subject to these provisions. Within 90 days after the end of the detention-related hardship, the bill would require the tenant to either pay all past due rent or enter into a mutually agreed upon payment plan with the owner of the residential real property. For purposes of the Act, this bill would define "immigration enforcement activities" to include any efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal immigration law, including any federal criminal immigration law that penalizes a person's presence in, entry or reentry to, or employment in, the United States. The bill would define "detention-related hardship" to mean, among other things, loss of income or financial support by the tenant or household member due to detention, arrest, or ordered removal of a tenant or household member by any federal law enforcement agency. This bill would prohibit a landlord from charging a tenant subject to these provisions fees assessed for the late payment of that rental debt. The bill would prohibit a person from selling or assigning any unpaid debt as a result of detention-related hardship. The bill would prohibit a housing provider or tenant screening company from using an alleged debt as a result of detention-related hardship as a negative factor for the purpose of evaluating a prospective housing application or as the basis for refusing to rent a dwelling unit to an otherwise qualified prospective tenant. The bill would delete similar provisions related to debts as a result of COVID-19 rental debt. The bill would require the Judicial Council to review its existing forms and develop new forms to effectuate these provisions. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2030.
Under existing law, the State Department of Public Health is responsible for the licensing and regulation of various facilities and settings that provide health care services, as specified. Existing law, the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act prohibits, except to the extent expressly authorized by a patient, enrollee, or subscriber, or as otherwise permitted or required, a provider of health care, health care service plan, contractor, or corporation and its subsidiaries and affiliates from disclosing medical information for immigration enforcement. Existing law requires health care provider entities, as defined, to establish or amend procedures for monitoring, documenting, and receiving visitors to health care provider entities to the extent possible, and prohibits, unless required by state or federal law, a health care provider entity and its personnel from allowing any person access to nonpublic areas of the provider's facilities for immigration enforcement purposes, except as specified. This bill would, among other things, require a health care provider entity to, when there is a patient accompanied by an immigration enforcement officer, verify and document the identities and agencies of the accompanying immigration enforcement officers, to the extent possible. The bill would require a health care provider entity to ask an immigration enforcement officer to step out of the patient's room when discussing any matters pertaining to patient care, or performing any physical examination, or providing any medical care, except as specified, would prohibit an immigration enforcement officer from having any authority to make, influence, or participate in medical decisions on behalf of patient they accompany, and would require the health care provider entity personnel to report a refusal to comply with the requirements of this bill to the health care provider entity management, administration, or legal counsel, who is required to then document the actions, and, to the extent possible, the name and badge number of an immigration enforcement officer. The bill would also prohibit a health care provider entity from using blackout policies when admitting a patient who is accompanied by an immigration enforcement officer, except as specified, and defines blackout policies to mean any policy that is used by health care provider entities to conceal a patient's presence or identity at the entity's facility, including, but not limited to, registering patients under a pseudonym, removing the patient's name from the health care provider entity's directory, or prohibiting personnel from confirming that a patient is in the health care provider entity.
