Governor Signs Schultz Bill Increasing Fairness and Transparency in the Justice System
Governor Gavin Newsom has signed Assembly Bill 1917, the Respect Judicial Decisions Act, authored by Assemblymember Nick Schultz (D-Burbank) and co-sponsored by the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office, Californians for Safety and Justice, and California Criminal Attorneys for Justice. AB 1917 requires prosecutors to explain their reasoning to the court when adding back criminal charges that were previously dismissed by a judge at a preliminary hearing. This narrow but important procedural change will increase fairness and court efficiency by respecting judicial decisions.
“This bill is built on a basic principle: people should not face criminal charges that are not supported by evidence. If a judge determines there isn’t enough evidence to support a charge, that charge shouldn’t continue to hang over a person’s head,” said Assemblymember Schultz, Chair of the Assembly Public Safety Committee and a former prosecutor.
“A preliminary hearing is the first chance defense attorneys get to substantially scrutinize the felony charges against our clients. To go through that process, have a charge dismissed by a judge, and then see the prosecutor simply add the charge back without any process or rationale, is a wasteful and unjust practice that ends now,” said San Francisco’s elected Public Defender Mano Raju, whose office sponsored this bill. “I thank Governor Newsom and Assemblymember Schultz for understanding that justice must be fair and not arbitrary.”
Under current law in California, when prosecutors file felony charges against a person, the case first goes to a preliminary hearing. The point of a preliminary hearing is for the state to present evidence to support the charges a district attorney has filed, the defense to scrutinize it, and the judge to determine whether there is enough evidence for a charge to proceed.
“A fair justice system that respects judicial decisions and evidence is an essential component of public safety,” said Tinisch Hollins, Executive Director of Californians for Safety and Justice. “AB 1917 restores balance to a process that let charges resurface without explanation. We thank Governor Newsom and Assemblymember Schultz for standing up for a justice system rooted in evidence, not arbitrary power.”
The standard of proof needed for a charge to move forward at a preliminary hearing is much lower than the standard of proof required in a jury trial. When a judge removes a charge at the preliminary hearing due to insufficient evidence, a prosecutor can simply add that charge back to the case without providing any reason or explanation. That’s problematic because it can defeat the purpose of a preliminary hearing, and it subjects people who are accused of those crimes to the whims of the district attorney rather than evidence and the rulings of a judge.
AB 1917 requires prosecutors to provide legal arguments by filing a motion with the court to show why they think a charge should be added back after a judge has dismissed it at a preliminary hearing. A judge may grant or deny the motion to reinstate the charges.
“When a judge reviews evidence, hears testimony, and determines there is insufficient evidence to continue a case, that decision should stand unless there is sufficient justification to reverse it,” said Markets Sims, President of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice. This measure establishes a balanced protocol to protect the integrity of the legal process.”
AB 1917 will go into effect on January 1, 2027. The bill was co-sponsored by the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, and Californians for Safety and Justice, and supported by nearly 40 organizations throughout the state.
Transparency Coming for Forever Chemicals Used in Agriculture as Schultz Bill Becomes Law
Governor Gavin Newsom has signed Assembly Bill 1603 authored by Assemblymember Nick Schultz (D-Burbank), which requires public disclosure regarding the use of PFAS chemicals in pesticides. Under the new law, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) must disclose in the Pesticide Use Reporting database that a pesticide contains PFAS pesticide ingredients, and include PFAS as a category of interest and any associated PFAS pesticide use trends as part of its Pesticide Use Reports and other relevant pesticide use reporting documents.
“As a father, I don’t want my kids eating strawberries contaminated with chemicals that will stay in their bodies for decades, and I’m thankful that Governor Newsom agrees that families deserve to know what’s being sprayed on their food,” said Schultz. “AB 1603 is a vital step toward ensuring California’s agricultural legacy is defined by health and innovation, not by the accumulation of toxic PFAS in our soil and water. We need to help our farmers transition away from these persistent chemicals so that California can be a global leader in food safety.”
PFAS pesticides – herbicides, insecticides and fungicides – are widely used across the state’s most productive farmland and on the state’s most lucrative and popular crops, such as almonds, pistachios, wine grapes, peaches, nectarines, strawberries, and tomatoes. This use is contaminating produce, rivers, lakes, sediment, and could also be contaminating farm soil and drinking water, potentially exposing millions of Californians to hazardous chemicals that never break down in the environment. Farmworkers, farmers and communities near fields where these pesticides are used are especially at risk of exposure, and public agencies will have to spend billions of ratepayer and taxpayer dollars to remove migrating PFAS from drinking water.
Every year, California agricultural fields are sprayed with an average of 2.5 million pounds of pesticides identified as the toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS. Between 2018 to 2023, fifteen million pounds of these PFAS pesticides were applied across 58 counties, with the heaviest use occurring in Fresno, Kern, San Joaquin, and Imperial counties.
Nearly 40% of non-organic, California-grown, fruits and vegetables sampled by the state had residues of PFAS pesticides when they went to market, an Environmental Working Group (EWG) analysisfound. This analysis found that out of the 930 samples of non-organic California-grown fruits and vegetables tested, 348 samples, or 37%, had traces of PFAS pesticides. These numbers are based on state testing data EWG reviewed. Also, among the 78 produce types tested, 40 types, or 51% of the different non-organic, California-grown, fruits and vegetable types had some residue of PFAS pesticides, the analysis found.
PFAS chemicals do not break down in our environment and many build up in blood and organs. Forever chemicals studied to date are associated with a range of serious health harms. Very low doses of PFAS in drinking water have been linked to the suppression of the immune system and are associated with an elevated risk of cancer, increased cholesterol, and reproductive and developmental harms, among other serious health concerns. For most people, food and drinking water are the primary routes of exposure to PFAS. That makes the use of these chemicals in agriculture especially concerning.
“The United States depends on California for its fruits and vegetables, but right now that produce is being seasoned with chemicals that never break down,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG’s Senior Vice President for California. “We cannot claim to lead the world in public health while allowing millions of pounds of toxic PFAS to be deliberately sprayed on our most iconic crops. Getting a handle on where and how much is being used is the essential first step.”
In response, states and other nations have been taking action. Maine enacted the first statewide ban on PFAS pesticides, which goes into effect in 2030. Minnesota passed a broad ban on uses of PFAS, including PFAS in pesticides, that will phase out nonessential PFAS uses by 2032. In addition, Denmark banned six PFAS pesticide ingredients and 23 California-approved PFAS pesticides, including several of the most frequently used PFAS pesticides, are not allowed to be used in the European Union.
The widespread presence of PFAS pesticides on California-grown produce underscores an alarming and largely unaddressed gap in pesticide oversight and PFAS use reductions. The California Legislature has recognized the need to drastically curb the use of PFAS by enacting numerous laws prohibiting PFAS in various consumer products, food packaging and firefighting foam. However, widespread use of PFAS pesticides—which contaminate our food—has gone unfettered.
Although amendments in the Senate removed the bill’s required phase out of PFAS usage in pesticides, AB 1603 will result greater transparency around the use of these harmful chemicals in California and set the stage for better oversight.
Schultz Bill to Improve Fairness for Youth in the Criminal Justice System Signed into Law
Governor Gavin Newsom has signed Assembly Bill 1905 authored by Assemblymember Nick Schultz (D-Burbank), which strengthens the protections in law for young people in custody by prohibiting law enforcement from using undercover officers or agents to obtain statements from individuals who were 17 years of age or younger at the time of the alleged offense and 26 or younger while in custody.
“Research and case experience consistently demonstrate that juveniles are more susceptible to pressure, manipulation, and deception, particularly when they are unaware that they are speaking with someone acting on behalf of law enforcement,” said Assemblymember Schultz, Chair of the Assembly Public Safety Committee and a former prosecutor. “AB 1905 puts in place clear guardrails, promotes fairness, and reduces the risk of unreliable statements. The Governor’s signature on this bill builds on our record of increased transparency and strengthening the integrity of the judicial system, particularly when juveniles are involved.”
Numerous studies in the last decade show that the prefrontal cortex reaches structural maturity around the mid-twenties, impacting planning, impulse control, and decision-making. These functions are highly relevant to culpability, risk assessment, and susceptibility to deception. Given these factors, young people are uniquely vulnerable during custodial interactions with law enforcement. AB 1905 focuses on addressing these vulnerabilities among young people in custody who are 26 years old and younger, reflecting the definition of youth in Penal Code § 1016.7 and neuroscientific research.
“Kids don’t stop being kids just because they’re in a jail cell,” said Kate Chatfield, Executive Director of the California Public Defenders Association. “Undercover tactics designed to trick young people into confessing produce false confessions, not truth. AB 1905 brings the law in line with what we already know about adolescent brain development, and it means fewer wrongful convictions built on statements that should never have been trusted in the first place.”
While California has taken important steps in recent years to safeguard youth during interrogations, gaps remain when undercover tactics are used in custodial settings. Without clear statutory limits, courts are often left to determine after the fact whether statements were obtained in a manner consistent with constitutional protections. Recent appellate guidance underscores the risks associated with these practices. Clear rules help ensure that statements relied upon in court are both credible and lawfully obtained, while reducing costly litigation over admissibility.
AB 1905 seeks to bridge this gap by creating a consistent and clear statewide standard to prevent constitutionally questionable interrogations. This bill addresses these unique vulnerabilities among youth by applying to those who are 26 years old and younger, reflecting California’s previously adopted definition of youth in Penal Code § 1016.7 and neuroscientific research. This bill will additionally direct courts to consider violations when determining admissibility and weigh willful violations when assessing an officer’s credibility. AB 1905 also includes a tailored emergency exception for imminent threats to life and will only apply to statements obtained on or after January 1st, 2027, assuring that pending cases are not impacted.
“AB 1905 is an important victory for justice and for preventing wrongful convictions,” said Jasmin Harris, with the California Innocence Coalition. “By strengthening protections for young people, this legislation helps ensure that unreliable statements don’t become the foundation for a wrongful conviction. We’re proud to have co-sponsored this important measure.”
