Civil rights: deprivation of federal constitutional rights, privileges, and immunities.

The venue requirement (former subdivision (c)) was removed entirely. The prior version required actions to be filed in the superior court for the county where the conduct occurred or where the defendant resides or has a place of business. Without this provision, there is no statutory venue limitation specific to this cause of action.

Authorization for courts to award expert fees to prevailing plaintiffs was removed. The enrolled version only authorizes attorney's fees and costs, eliminating the separate expert fee remedy that would have allowed plaintiffs to recover costs of expert witnesses.

The immunity defense provision was expanded from a single paragraph to three paragraphs. The new paragraph (2) explicitly states the defense cannot be construed as broader or narrower than under federal Section 1983, and paragraph (3) clarifies it does not alter any rule or decision governing immunity in other California proceedings. This provides stronger textual protection for defendants against arguments that the state immunity defense should diverge from federal law.

A new Section 1 is added containing four legislative intent statements: (a) the cause of action creates no substantive rights and is only a vehicle to enforce existing constitutional rights, citing Chapman v. Houston; (b) the immunity defense must remain identical to federal Section 1983 immunity and track future federal developments; (c) nothing alters Civil Code Section 52.1; (d) nothing limits the right of removal to federal court under federal law.

The immunity defense in subdivision (c) is strengthened: a defendant now 'may assert, and shall receive the benefit of' absolute or qualified immunity (previously only 'may assert'). A new clause (c)(2) explicitly states the defense cannot be made broader or narrower than the equivalent federal Section 1983 defense.

A new res judicata provision (subdivision h(2)) bars a suit under this section if a court of competent jurisdiction already entered a final judgment on the merits determining either that the conduct did not deprive the party of constitutional rights, or that the defendant did not violate clearly established constitutional rights. A judgment based solely on the absence of a cause of action does not trigger this bar.

The severability clause is moved from within Section 53.8 to a standalone Section 3 applying to the entire act, and the urgency statute is renumbered to Section 4. The vote requirement language is simplified from 'majority 2/3' to '2/3'.

New Section 2 declares the bill an urgency statute under Article IV of the California Constitution, making it take effect immediately upon enactment rather than on January 1. The stated necessity is to provide sufficient redress for infringement of civil liberties as soon as possible.

The required legislative vote changed from a simple majority to a two-thirds majority in each house, which is the constitutional requirement for passing an urgency statute.

Assembly Member Kalra was added to the list of coauthors.

Section 2 (urgency clause) was deleted entirely. The bill no longer takes effect immediately and no longer requires a two-thirds majority vote; it now follows the standard one-year delayed effective date with a simple majority vote.

Subdivision (b) changed from 'Every person who' to 'Every natural person who,' narrowing the class of individuals who can be held liable under this state civil rights cause of action. This excludes legal entities such as corporations and organizations.

Subdivision (c) venue provision changed from 'a person whose conduct complained of resides' to 'a natural person whose conduct complained of resides,' consistent with the narrowing in subdivision (b).

A new definition was added in subdivision (j)(2): 'Natural person' does not include a federal, state, or local official who is sued in their official capacity for monetary relief. This means government officials can still be sued for injunctive or declaratory relief in their official capacity, but cannot be held personally liable for money damages under this section.

The entire amendment to Section 52.1 (Tom Bane Civil Rights Act) was removed. This eliminated provisions that would have added a color-of-law liability clause to the existing act, venue rules for those actions, order requirements with criminal penalty language, law enforcement notification duties, speech protections (speech alone insufficient; no content restrictions), non-waiver by contract, removal of state immunity for peace officers, and indemnification provisions.

Senators Becker and Cortese were added as coauthors, expanding the bill's Senate support base.

Section 53.8 subdivision (i) now limits damages for retroactive claims: for constitutional violations occurring between March 1, 2025 and the effective date of the section, only nominal and compensatory damages are available (excluding punitive damages).

Minor wording fix in subdivisions (d) and (e) of Section 53.8: 'action proceeding' was changed to 'action or proceeding' for grammatical correctness.

The entire Labor Code Section 1197.6 was deleted. This section had required large health care service plans (3,500,000+ enrollees) to report compensation data for behavioral health employees versus medical-surgical employees to the Department of Industrial Relations, with a report due to the Legislature by January 1, 2027.

New Civil Code Section 53.8, named the 'No Kings Act,' was added. It creates a state civil cause of action for any person who, under color of law, deprives a citizen of rights secured by the US Constitution. This is essentially a state-level analogue to federal 42 USC 1983.

The No Kings Act allows defendants to assert absolute or qualified immunity defenses to the same extent as under federal Section 1983, and explicitly preserves sovereign immunity. Judicial officers acting in their judicial capacity are protected from injunctive relief unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.

The No Kings Act imposes a two-year statute of limitations (from the date the cause of action accrues) and applies retroactively to March 1, 2025.

Courts may award prevailing plaintiffs reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and expert fees under the No Kings Act, except that judicial officers acting in their judicial capacity cannot be held liable for fees or costs unless their action was clearly in excess of jurisdiction.

The No Kings Act defines 'color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage' to include laws of the United States and of any state, territory, or the District of Columbia, broadening the scope beyond just California law.

Authorship was expanded: Senator Wahab added as co-author, Assembly Member Mark Gonzalez added as principal coauthor, and multiple additional Senate and Assembly coauthors were listed. The fiscal committee note changed from 'yes' to 'no' reflecting the removal of the reporting requirement.

Added a new Section 1 amending Civil Code Section 52.1 (Tom Bane Civil Rights Act) to create a state-level cause of action for deprivation of federal constitutional rights, privileges, or immunities by any person acting under color of state or federal law. This is a state analog to the federal civil rights statute (42 U.S.C. Section 1983).

The Senate vote requirement was changed from a simple majority to a two-thirds supermajority, indicating the bill now requires broader legislative support to pass.

Added provisions specifying that state immunity protections (Government Code Sections 821.6, 844.6, 845.6) do NOT apply to peace officers, custodial officers, or public entities employing them in actions under the new civil rights provision, while indemnification provisions DO still apply to public entity employees.

Venue, order requirements, and attorney's fees provisions of the Tom Bane Act were expanded to apply to actions brought under the new subdivision (d) (the state-level constitutional deprivation remedy), not just the existing subdivisions.

Added speech protection provisions: speech alone is insufficient to support a civil rights action unless it threatens violence against a specific person or group who reasonably fears violence and the threatener has apparent ability to carry it out. Orders cannot restrict content of speech, only time, place, or manner as reasonably necessary.

Added a provision that the rights, penalties, remedies, forums, and procedures of the Tom Bane Act shall not be waived by contract, except as provided in Section 51.7 (which governs arbitration agreements).

Added an urgency clause declaring the civil rights amendments to take effect immediately, citing the need to provide sufficient redress for infringement of civil liberties as soon as possible.

Added Senator Gonzalez as a coauthor and added a severability provision for the civil rights act amendments.

The entire vending machine labeling provision (amending Business and Professions Code Section 17570) was removed from the bill. The bill no longer addresses posting telephone numbers or email addresses on vending machines.

A new legislative findings section was added under Article I, Section 3 of the California Constitution, justifying the limitation on public access to compensation data by stating it is necessary to address disparities and promote behavioral health care access, while averting unintended interference in health care market pricing mechanisms.

A new confidentiality requirement mandates that compensation data reported by covered employers be exclusively available to the Department of Industrial Relations, the Department of Health Care Access and Information, and the Department of Managed Health Care, and shall not be made publicly available.

The Department of Industrial Relations must consult with the Department of Health Care Access and Information and the Department of Managed Health Care, produce nonspecific aggregated data, analyze compensation disparities between behavioral health employees and similarly situated medical-surgical employees, and incorporate findings into a report.

The department must submit its disparity analysis report to the Legislature on or before January 1, 2027. The reporting requirement is inoperative on January 1, 2031, pursuant to Government Code Section 10231.5.

The fiscal committee designation changed from 'no' to 'yes,' indicating the bill now requires fiscal committee review, likely due to the new reporting and analysis obligations placed on state departments.

Added an entirely new Section 1197.6 to the Labor Code requiring covered employers to report compensation for behavioral health and medical-surgical employees to the Department of Industrial Relations.

Bill title expanded from solely relating to vending machines to also relating to employment, reflecting the new wage reporting provisions.

Defined 'covered employer' as a medical group or health care service plan with at least 3,500,000 enrollees that owns or operates its own pharmacies and provides services through a mutually exclusive contract with a single medical group in a specific geographic area - a definition that appears to target one specific large health plan.

Added definitions for 'behavioral health employee' (psychologists, behavioral scientists, psychiatric nurses, drug/alcohol counselors, autism service providers, and contracted equivalents) and 'medical-surgical employee' (physician assistants, occupational therapists, physical therapists, recreation therapists, respiratory care workers, radiologic health workers, speech-language pathologists, and medical-surgical nurses).

Added enforcement provisions allowing the Department of Industrial Relations to seek a court order for compliance and recover costs, with civil penalties up to $100 per employee for first violations and $200 per employee for subsequent violations. Explicitly states violations are not misdemeanors.

Fiscal committee designation changed from 'no' to 'yes', indicating the amendment introduces fiscal impact that requires review.