An act relating to the Budget Act of 2025. An act to repeal Section 241 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and to amend Sections 68502.6, 77202, 77202.5, and 77209 of, to add Sections 68515 and 70397.1 to, and to repeal Sections 68604 and 77001.5 of, the Government Code, relating to courts, and making an appropriation therefor, to take effect immediately, bill related to the budget.
SB 136 is a budget-related courts bill for the 2025–26 fiscal year that makes a series of changes to Judicial Council reporting, funding, and property-disposition authorities. It repeals the existing juror compensation and mileage reimbursement pilot program, updates obsolete references from the Administrative Office of the Courts to the Judicial Council, and adds a new requirement that the Judicial Council submit an annual report by February 1 on trial court operations, including case backlogs, clearance rates, disposition times, public counter hours, staff vacancies, fund balances, and funding levels. It also moves an existing trial court allocations/reimbursements report from September 30 to February 1.
The bill also modifies court finance provisions. It preserves and clarifies the Judicial Council’s authority to move funds as short-term loans to the Trial Court Trust Fund, while requiring annual reporting on those loans. It repeals older statutory reporting requirements tied to timely disposition statistics and judicial administration standards, and it repeals a separate provision requiring an annual report on the State Trial Court Improvement and Modernization Fund. In addition, it authorizes the Judicial Council to sell three specified courthouse properties—the Plumas/Sierra Regional Courthouse, the Modesto Main Courthouse and Hall of Records, and the Ceres Superior Court—subject to county consultation and a county right of first purchase, with net proceeds deposited into the General Fund.
On the fiscal side, SB 136 appropriates $4.69 million from the General Fund to the State Court Facilities Construction Fund for a one-time backfill. The bill is designated as a budget bill measure and would take effect immediately. Its practical effect is to adjust how the judicial branch reports operational performance and finances to the Legislature, while also opening a path for courthouse asset sales and a small facilities-related backfill appropriation.
The overall sentiment appears generally supportive and budget-oriented rather than controversial in the available record. The bill passed the Senate on third reading with 28 yeas and 10 nays, indicating meaningful but not overwhelming support. The committee history shows it advancing from the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee and then being amended in the Assembly and re-referred to Assembly Budget, suggesting it is being handled as part of the normal budget process.
The main points of contention are likely to be the repeal of the juror diversity pilot program and the elimination of several existing reporting/study requirements, which reduce ongoing oversight obligations. The courthouse sale authority may also draw attention from affected counties and local stakeholders because it involves specific facilities and requires county consultation and a purchase opportunity before sale. More broadly, the bill shifts the judiciary toward streamlined reporting and asset management, which may be viewed as efficiency-enhancing by supporters and as reducing transparency or local control by critics.
SB 136 amends multiple Government Code provisions governing trial court finance, Judicial Council reporting, and courthouse property disposition, while repealing several older court-related reporting statutes in the Code of Civil Procedure and Government Code. It changes the timing and content of Judicial Council reports, adds a new annual trial court operations report, and authorizes sales of specified courthouse properties with proceeds going to the General Fund. It also appropriates $4.69 million to the State Court Facilities Construction Fund and takes effect immediately as a budget-related measure, affecting the administration and funding structure of California’s trial courts and Judicial Council.
The bill’s available voting history suggests moderate support with some opposition. It passed the Senate 3rd Reading on a 28-10 vote, and the measure advanced from committee with author’s amendments, indicating it remained viable and was treated as part of the budget package. The overall tone of the bill is pragmatic and administrative, focused on court operations, reporting, and fiscal management rather than major policy expansion.
Likely areas of contention include the repeal of the juror compensation and mileage reimbursement pilot program, which had been intended to study juror diversity and participation, and the elimination of several existing reporting and standards requirements that some may view as important oversight tools. The authorization to sell named courthouse properties may also be sensitive for the affected counties and local court users, even though the bill requires county consultation and a right of first purchase. Supporters are likely to emphasize efficiency, updated reporting, and budget flexibility, while critics may focus on reduced transparency, the loss of a juror-diversity study, and the disposition of public courthouse assets.