California Senate Bill SB28

California 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 12/2/24
• Refer: 1/29/25
• Refer: 3/10/25
• Report Pass: 3/25/25
• Refer: 3/25/25
• Report Pass: 5/23/25
• Engrossed: 5/29/25
• Refer: 6/5/25

Caption

An act to amend Sections 5361, 5971, 5975, 5976.5, 5977, 5977.1, 5977.3, 5977.4, 5978.1, 5979, 5982, 5983, and 5985 of, and to add Section 5988 to, the Welfare and Institutions Code, relating to mental health.

Summary

SB 28 would revise California’s treatment court standards so that treatment court programs are available to all eligible California defendants and are operated under state and national best-practice guidelines. The bill adds an explicit requirement that a drug addiction expert evaluate the defendant for substance abuse and mental health needs and provide a report to the court and the parties. It also states that treatment court programs complying with these standards may be used to satisfy the requirements of the Treatment-Mandated Felony Act (Proposition 36). The bill is framed as an urgency measure, meaning it would take effect immediately to support implementation of Proposition 36. In addition to setting program standards, it removes the prior requirement that the Judicial Council separately revise standards of judicial administration by a fixed date, and instead directly embeds the relevant standards in statute. The measure is aimed at ensuring courts have a treatment-court option available for eligible defendants who choose treatment in lieu of incarceration or probation with jail conditions.

Impact

SB 28 would amend Section 11972 of the Health and Safety Code, changing the legal framework for county and court treatment court programs. It broadens access by requiring treatment court programs to be available to all eligible California defendants, and it ties those programs to compliance with specified best-practice standards, including behavioral health integration, drug testing, incentives and sanctions, and evaluation by a qualified drug addiction expert. It also links treatment court participation to the requirements of Section 11395, the Treatment-Mandated Felony Act, thereby affecting how courts implement Proposition 36-related treatment options.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests broad support and little visible opposition. The bill passed Senate floor consideration with a 38-0 vote on third reading, and earlier committee votes were unanimous or near-unanimous, including 6-0 and 7-0 actions. The urgency clause and the stated purpose of facilitating Proposition 36 implementation indicate a generally favorable view of the bill as a practical implementation measure rather than a controversial policy shift.

Contention

The main legal issue is that SB 28 would amend an initiative statute, Proposition 36, which requires a two-thirds vote or voter approval for amendment. The bill’s approach of directly requiring treatment court availability and specifying standards may raise questions about the scope of legislative authority over the voter-enacted Treatment-Mandated Felony Act. A secondary point of concern is implementation: courts and counties would need to ensure treatment courts are available statewide for eligible defendants and that qualified addiction experts are available to perform evaluations, which could affect local capacity and administration.