An act to amend Section 7930.205 of the Government Code, and to add Chapter 1.79 (commencing with Section 5097.1000) to Division 5 of the Public Resources Code, relating to California Indians.
AB 1881, the California Indian Freedom Act of 2026, would create new state-law protections for California Indian and California Native American religious and ceremonial practices on state lands. The bill prohibits state agencies from substantially burdening those practices unless the agency can show a compelling governmental interest and that it used the least restrictive means. It also gives California Indians and tribes standing to raise violations in court or administrative proceedings and authorizes declaratory relief, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and other equitable remedies.
The bill further requires state agencies to allow access to sacred sites on state lands for religious, ceremonial, or cultural activities unless public safety or resource protection makes access impossible. Before undertaking project actions on state lands that may affect sacred sites, agencies would have to seek and document free, prior, and informed consent from affected tribes, with written affirmation from the tribe’s governing body. The bill also directs the Department of General Services and the Capitol Protective Section to accommodate tribal religious and ceremonial practices at the State Capitol Annex and grounds, and to avoid undue harm when handling tribal instruments and regalia.
AB 1881 would amend the Government Code’s Public Records Act exemptions to make information identifying sacred sites, cultural landscapes, or religious practices of California Native American tribes confidential. It would also add a new chapter to the Public Resources Code establishing definitions, access rights, consent procedures, confidentiality protections, and enforcement remedies tied specifically to state-owned lands. The bill expressly limits its application to state lands and does not extend to city, county, district, private, or other non-state lands.
The available legislative history suggests generally favorable committee sentiment. The bill received a 10-0 do pass vote as amended and was later re-referred from committee with a 10-1 vote, indicating broad support but not complete unanimity. The bill’s findings and structure show a strong policy emphasis on Indigenous religious freedom, cultural survival, and confidentiality, and there is no transcript evidence here of organized opposition in committee discussion.
The main areas of potential contention are the bill’s expansion of enforceable rights and its confidentiality limits on public access to information. Requiring agencies to seek free, prior, and informed consent before certain state-land projects, and allowing tribes to use the act as a claim or defense with fee-shifting remedies, could be viewed as increasing procedural and legal burdens on state agencies. The bill also narrows public disclosure by exempting sacred-site and religious-practice information from public records laws, which may raise transparency concerns. At the same time, the bill includes limiting language—such as restricting its scope to state lands and preserving the state’s ability to enter into access agreements with tribes—suggesting an effort to balance tribal protections with agency flexibility.